Course of performance
This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-303 (Copyvios report). This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution – for more complicated situations, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. See CSD G12.
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient. Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Note to administrators: If declining the request due to not meeting the criteria please consider whether there are still copyright problems with the page and if so, see these instructions for cleanup, or list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please be sure that the source of the alleged copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. Also, ensure the submitter of this page has been notified about our copyright policy.Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Justlettersandnumbers (contribs | logs) at 19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (9 years ago) |
 |
The term course of performance is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code as follows:
(a) A "course of performance" is a sequence of conduct between the parties to a particular transaction that exists if:
- (1) the agreement of the parties with respect to the transaction involves repeated occasions for performance by a party; and
- (2) the other party, with knowledge of the nature of the performance and opportunity for objection to it, accepts the performance or acquiesces in it without objection.
UCC § 1-303(a). "Course of dealing," as defined in [UCC § 1-303] subsection (b), is restricted, literally, to a sequence of conduct between the parties previous to the agreement. A sequence of conduct after or under the agreement, however, is a "course of performance."[1]
Where a contract involves repeated occasions for performance and opportunity for objection "any course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement."[2] "[S]uch course of performance shall be relevant to show a waiver or modification of any term inconsistent with such course of performance."[3] This UCC section recognizes that the "parties themselves know best what they have meant by their words of agreement and their action under that agreement is the best indication of what that meaning was."[4]
It is well established that a written contract may be modified by the parties' post-agreement "course of performance." [5]
A waiver that changes the express terms of a contract can be established by evidence of a course of performance. This holds true even for contracts that are fully integrated. The policy behind this "broad doctrine of waiver" in contract law is to "prevent the waiving party from 'lull[ing] another into a false assurance that strict compliance with a contractual duty will not be required and then sue for noncompliance.' "[6]
It is not necessary that the contract be ambiguous before course of performance will be considered.[7]
A course of dealing is shown by repeated instances of the relevant conduct, not single occasions or actions.[8]
References
- ^ Cmt. 2, UCC § 1-303.
- ^ UCC 2-208[1].
- ^ UCC 2-208[3].
- ^ UCC 2-208, cmt, 1.
- ^ See, e.g., Rose v. Spa Realty Assocs., 42 N.Y.2d 338, 397 N.Y.S.2d 922, 366 N.E.2d 1279 (1977); GE Capital Commer. Auto. Fin. v. Spartan Motors, Ltd., 246 A.D.2d 41, 52, 675 N.Y.S.2d 626, 634 (App. Div. 1998).
- ^ Midwest Builder Distrib. v. Lord & Essex, 383 Ill. App. 3d 645, 674, 322 Ill. Dec. 371, 398, 891 N.E.2d 1, 28 (2007); Whalen v. K Mart Corp., 166 Ill. App. 3d 339, 343, 519 N.E.2d 991, 116 Ill. Dec. 776 (1988).
- ^ Feinberg v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 15 Misc. 3d 299, 300, 832 N.Y.S.2d 760, 761 (Sup. Ct. 2007).
- ^ Dallas. Aero., Inc. v. CIS Air Corp., 352 F.3d 775, 783 (2d Cir. 2003); Cravotta v. Deggingers' Foundry, Inc., 288 P.3d 871 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012); Estate of Polushkin v. Maw, 170 P.3d 162, 171 (Alaska 2007).