UCC § 2-207: Acceptance with Additional Terms (Battle of the...

Introduction

Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs how contracts for the sale of goods form when business forms do not match. Instead of the old common-law mirror rule, an acceptance that adds or changes terms can still create a contract—unless the acceptance says it is expressly conditional on the other side agreeing to those added or different terms. This framework is often called the “battle of the forms” and it affects purchase orders, order acknowledgments, confirmations, and invoices used every day in U.S. commerce.

Once there’s an acceptance, the added terms may or may not become part of the contract, depending on whether both parties are merchants, whether the original offer limited acceptance to its terms, whether the new terms would materially alter the deal, and whether a timely objection is made. Even if the writings do not create a contract, conduct (like shipping and paying) can still form one, with the UCC filling gaps where the forms conflict.

What You'll Learn

• How UCC § 2-207(1) treats acceptances that add or change terms
• When an “acceptance” turns into a counteroffer (expressly conditional language)
• How additional terms are handled between merchants and non-merchants
• What counts as a material alteration (e.g., warranty disclaimers, arbitration, liability caps)
• How different terms are treated (including the “knock-out rule” used in many states)
• How contracts form by conduct under § 2-207(3) and which terms control
• Practical steps for drafting offers, acknowledgments, and objections
• Fast checks to reduce disputes over whose form controls

Core Concepts

1) § 2-207(1): Acceptance vs Counteroffer

• Definite and seasonable acceptance: A signed acknowledgment or timely email stating agreement to buy or sell is usually an acceptance, even if it adds or changes terms.
• Expressly conditional language: If the acceptance clearly states it is expressly conditional on assent to the additional or different terms, then it is a counteroffer, not an acceptance.
  • Common phrasing that meets the test: “This acceptance is expressly made conditional on your assent to the additional or different terms stated herein.”
  • Soft qualifiers like “subject to” or a general reference to the seller’s terms often do not meet the “expressly conditional” threshold in many courts.
• Practical effect: Without clear “expressly conditional” language, a response that adds or changes terms is still an acceptance. The new terms are handled under § 2-207(2).

2) § 2-207(2): What Happens to the New Terms?

• Non-merchants: Added terms are proposals that do not become part of the contract unless the other party expressly agrees to them.
• Between merchants: Added terms do become part of the contract unless:
  1. The offer says acceptance is limited to the offer’s terms,
  2. The new terms materially alter the contract, or
  3. The offeror objects to the new terms within a reasonable time.

Material alteration

• Standard: Would the term cause surprise or hardship if incorporated without express awareness?
• Common material terms (often require express assent):
  • Disclaimers of implied warranties (merchantability or fitness)
  • Arbitration clauses or forum-selection clauses
  • Caps on damages or exclusions of consequential damages (context matters)
  • Shortened complaint or return periods beyond customary practice
  • Large changes in payment risk (e.g., strict interest penalties, broad attorney-fee shifting)
• Terms less likely to be material if consistent with trade practice and prior dealings:
  • Minor delivery window adjustments
  • Reasonable interest on late payments at customary rates
  • Clerical or administrative provisions consistent with prior transactions

Different terms

• States vary. Many courts use the knock-out rule (conflicting terms drop out and the UCC fills the gap). Others treat different terms like additional terms and apply the § 2-207(2) analysis. Know your jurisdiction.

3) § 2-207(3): Contract by Conduct and the Knock-Out Rule

• If the writings do not form a contract (for example, due to an expressly conditional acceptance), the parties can still form a contract by conduct (e.g., shipping, receiving, paying).
• Terms of a contract formed by conduct:
  • The terms on which the writings agree, plus
  • UCC gap-fillers (e.g., price, delivery, payment, risk of loss) and terms supplied by course of performance, prior dealings, and trade usage.
• Conflicts between the forms:
  • Many courts “knock out” conflicting terms and replace them with UCC defaults.
  • This is common for warranty, remedy, and arbitration conflicts when the contract forms by conduct.

Key Examples or Case Studies

Real-life example

• Scenario: Company A sends a purchase order for 100 widgets. Company B sends an acknowledgment that changes the delivery window and includes a disclaimer of implied warranties.
• Analysis: Company B’s response is an acceptance unless it is expressly conditional. The added terms are proposals:
  • Delivery window change: If modest and consistent with prior dealings or trade practice, it may not be material and could become part of the contract between merchants absent timely objection.
  • Warranty disclaimer: Typically a material alteration. It does not become part of the contract unless Company A expressly agrees.
• Takeaway: Review each added term. Some (like warranty disclaimers) usually require express assent; others may flow into the contract between merchants if no timely objection is made.

Case study: Brown v. ABC Corp. (hypothetical)

• Facts: Brown orders industrial equipment. ABC Corp. accepts and adds installation and maintenance details in the acknowledgment. Brown does not object. Later, a dispute arises over the installation process.
• Holding (applied analysis under § 2-207): Because the added installation/maintenance details did not materially alter the deal and Brown did not object, those terms became part of the contract between merchants.
• Takeaway: Operational details that align with industry practice are often included if no timely objection is made.

Case study: XYZ Industries v. Jones (hypothetical)

• Facts: XYZ’s offer limits acceptance to the offer’s terms. Jones replies with an “acceptance” that adds a liability cap. A dispute follows.
• Holding (applied analysis under § 2-207): Because the offer expressly limited acceptance and the added liability cap materially altered the bargain, Jones’s “acceptance” functioned as a counteroffer. If the parties then shipped and paid, a contract may still have formed by conduct under § 2-207(3), with conflicting terms knocked out and UCC gap-fillers applied.
• Takeaway: Offer language that limits acceptance is powerful. Liability caps and remedy limits usually require express assent.

Practical Applications

For offerors (buyers or sellers)

• Use clear offer terms: “Acceptance is limited to the terms of this offer. Additional or different terms proposed by the other party are rejected unless we agree in a signed writing.”
• Flag material terms: Put key items (warranty, remedy, arbitration, liability caps, forum) in bold, on the face of the offer, or require a signature next to them.
• Object fast: If you receive an acknowledgment with terms you do not want, send a timely written objection. Silence can allow some terms to slip in between merchants.
• Track merchant status: If both sides are merchants, added terms may become part of the deal unless one of the § 2-207(2) exceptions applies.
• Confirm the final agreement: Follow with a short, signed contract or confirmation that restates the agreed terms and states that no other terms apply.

For offerees (often sellers)

• Use “expressly conditional” only when you mean it: If you want your added terms to control, say so clearly: “This acceptance is expressly made conditional on your assent to the additional or different terms stated herein.” Be prepared for the legal risk that no contract forms by writings alone.
• Avoid vague conditions: Phrases like “subject to our terms” often do not meet the threshold and will not stop a contract from forming under § 2-207(1).
• Get express assent to material terms: For warranty disclaimers, arbitration, or liability caps, ask for a signature, a checked box, or a clear email confirmation.

When conduct forms the contract

• Assume knock-out risk: Conflicting terms (like different warranty or arbitration clauses) may drop out, and UCC gap-fillers will apply.
• Manage performance carefully: Confirm shipping, delivery, and payment terms in writing before performance starts.

Drafting tips

• Place this near the signature block on offers: “Acceptance is limited to the terms of this offer. Any additional or different terms are rejected unless we agree in a signed writing.”
• Place this on acknowledgments when intended: “This acceptance is expressly made conditional on your assent to the additional or different terms stated herein.”

Process controls

• Train sales and procurement teams to send timely objections to unwanted terms.
• Standardize forms and keep a record of prior dealings; consistent behavior can help fill gaps.
• In e-commerce, use clear click-to-accept workflows and provide terms at or before order confirmation.

Related terms to review

• Mirror Rule
• Counteroffer
• Conditional Acceptance
• Mailbox Rule
• Lessor and Lessee (for comparison with goods vs. lease contexts)

Summary Checklist

• Is there a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance?
• Does the response say it is “expressly made conditional” on assent to new terms?
• Did the original offer limit acceptance to its terms?
• Are both parties merchants?
• Do the new terms materially alter the deal (e.g., warranty disclaimer, arbitration, liability cap)?
• Was a timely objection sent to the added terms?
• If writings do not form a contract, did conduct (ship/receive/pay) create one under § 2-207(3)?
• For conflicts, expect the knock-out rule in many states and UCC gap-fillers to supply terms.
• Confirm final terms in a signed writing or clear electronic assent, especially for material items.

Quick Reference