battle of the forms

battle of the forms

in the law of contract, a case where the parties on their business forms include terms saying that the contract must be governed by their own, and not the other party's, terms and conditions. The courts usually resolve these matters by accepting that there is a contract and deciding which terms apply by seeing who, in the exchange of offers and acceptances, fired the last shot.
References in periodicals archive ?
It is also always preferable to get a signed agreement, rather than depending on a "Battle of the Forms" to establish terms.
In the absence of a signed and complete agreement, it is not clear that the Battle of the Forms ever ends.
This is sometimes referred to as the battle of the forms. The basic rule of thumb is that if you do not have a signed contract, the last set of terms and conditions sent between the parties will create the terms of the contract.
By taking these measures into consideration, you'll increase the chances of winning a battle of the forms.
This Note illustrates the existing confusion by looking at a common contract hypothetical, the battle of the forms. It then surveys the various arguments that have been forwarded on behalf of harmonization and argues that international transactions will be ameliorated by efforts at vertical uniformity between domestic laws and the CISG, uniform interpretation of the CISG, and education of the practicing bar.
The potential difficulty of this harmonization is illustrated by the classic contract formation dispute known as the "battle of the forms." This Note will identify the battle of the forms problem, describe domestic solutions to this problem in the United States and Canada, describe the solution to this problem forwarded by the CISG, and analyze the challenges of harmonizing the CISG and domestic laws.
Like many commercial law professors, I have long been fascinated with the workings of the Uniform Commercial Code's section 2-207, the "battle of the forms" provision.
We should, however, take seriously the possibility that Keating found no evidence because the battle of the forms and related activities are not important vehicles for those inclined to advantage-taking.
I argue, though, that these master agreements may not solve all of the objections that some courts and some scholars have raised in "battle of the forms" cases.
Professor Keating's work on the battle of the forms provides an excellent vehicle for exploring these issues.
section 2-207 and the "battle of the forms" is both vast and intricate.(1) That fact, together with the distinguished array of commentators assembled here, makes it unlikely that I will be able to say anything substantially original on that subject.

Full browser ?