# Business Law Questions..

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [December 5, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912 "2008-12-05T20:32:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/1 "2008-12-05T20:32:39Z")

</div>

I had these two questions today on a test. While they might sound like GD material, they obviously had factual answers:

1. Sally works for XYZ Corp. It is a 24/7/365 outfit. She has recently become a born again Christian and wants Sundays off. The company assigns days off on a seniority based system. The company goes so far as to ask for volunteers to work on Sunday for Sally. Nobody volunteers.

Sally sues her company. Did the employer make “reasonable accomodation”?

1. Dave owes Jack $700. Dave mails Jack a detailed letter asking him to accept $500 as payment in full and includes a $500 check with the letter. Jack cashes the check and sues Dave for $200.

Did cashing the check novate the contract, or does Dave still owe $200?

Thanks, guys

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/2 "2008-12-05T20:50:02Z")

</div>

1. No. “Reasonable accomodation” means they essentially have to give her the day off unless the request itself is unreasonable based on their business - ie., they’re only open Sunday and Tuesday, for example. She can request religious accomodation at any time, not just at the time of hire, and so long as the employer has no reason to doubt her sincerity, she’ll win her suit.

2. If there’s a valid contract, accepting partial payment doesn’t prevent Jack from seeking the remaining $200. However, Jack has to make a good faith effort to obtain payment directly if he doesn’t want his suit tossed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/3 "2008-12-05T20:57:18Z")

</div>

I’m not convinced either question has a factual answer. Arguments can be raised on both sides. In the first question, the employer argues that forcing a senior employee to accept a “less desirable” day off in favor of a less senior employee is not reasonable, and it is not clear that the employee has a religious prohibition against working on Sunday. There may also be union contract considerations. The employee argues that the Bible says to keep Holy the Sabbath, and that means she can’t work on Sunday. It would require a trial to determine the issue of whether they’ve made a reasonable accomodation or not.

On the second question, there is nothing explicit about whether the check is marked “Paid in full” or not. The creditor is going to argue he’s entitled to collect the full amount due. The debtor is going to argue that cashing the check constitutes acceptance of a revised contract. Laws regarding negotiable instruments vary from state to state. Likewise contract law varies in different jurisdictions.

I don’t think a lawyer would be making a frivolous claim representing either party on the facts presented, unless there was controlling case law in the applicable jurisdiction directly on point, and there is nothing in the question to indicate that, nor is there any indication which body of law is to be considered…and even then, a lawyer is entitled to make a good faith argument for a change in law, or to distinguish his case from a previously decided case that might appear to be controlling. Perhaps it could be said that one outcome is more likely than another…but it boils down to a matter of opinion and interpetation of the applicable law in a particular jurisdiction. This is why laymen are not permitted to practice law. I’m not willing to offer a definitive yes or no to either question without more information than what appears to be available.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/4 "2008-12-05T21:01:26Z")

</div>

> [@Oakminster](#):
>
> This is why laymen are not permitted to practice law. I’m not willing to offer a definitive yes or no to either question without more information than what appears to be available.

I don’t disagree with you, but these were actual test questions (I paraphrased) which required factual answers. I’m pretty sure that I didn’t miss anything relevant (e.g. The question didn’t specify whether or not the debtor said anything about cashing the check being acceptance. Would that make a difference? I know marking “paid in full” on a check means squat)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/5 "2008-12-05T21:06:22Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> I don’t disagree with you, but these were actual test questions (I paraphrased) which required factual answers. I’m pretty sure that I didn’t miss anything relevant (e.g. The question didn’t specify whether or not the debtor said anything about cashing the check being acceptance. Would that make a difference? I know marking “paid in full” on a check means squat)

I don’t know. That’s not the way I would have handled the matter as a debtor. I’d have tried to obtain written agreement to compromise the debt before tendering any funds. “Paid in full” on the check may or may not constitute a defense to the debt…or there can be other limitations imposed…sometimes release language is included in the memo field of the check. I’ve seen that used in small personal injury suits, as an example–but have not tested the validity of the language in court.

Was this in law school, or an undergrad course in business law?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/6 "2008-12-05T21:13:57Z")

</div>

> [@Oakminster](#):
>
> Was this in law school, or an undergrad course in business law?

This is an undergrad course in Business Law..

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/7 "2008-12-05T21:17:38Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> This is an undergrad course in Business Law..

That’s what I thought. The questions are kinda sloppy. In law school, the “yes or no” is not as important as the quality of the analysis of the issues and the argument made. At least in traditional exams. Some profs use mulitple choice questions, but they generally provide a lot more detail.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/8 "2008-12-05T21:23:41Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> I don’t disagree with you, but these were actual test questions (I paraphrased) which required factual answers. I’m pretty sure that I didn’t miss anything relevant (e.g. The question didn’t specify whether or not the debtor said anything about cashing the check being acceptance. Would that make a difference? I know marking “paid in full” on a check means squat)

Marking “paid in full” on a check can result in an accord and satisfaction of the debt under some circumstances: [http://www.weissandassoc.com/article\_accordandsatisfaction.html](http://www.weissandassoc.com/article_accordandsatisfaction.html)

> **[U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (2002)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3)**

But the exam question asks about novation, which is a different concept:

> [@](#):
>
> A novation is a new contract made with the intent to extinguish one already in existence . . . ." Where a novation is found, it acts to extinguish any claims which existed under the original contract . . . .A novation requires (1) a valid existing contract, (2) the agreement of all parties to a new contract, (3) a valid new contract, and (4) an extinguishment of the old contract in favor of the new one. . . . Where a subsequent agreement lacks any language, either express or implied, which indicates an intention to “create a novation, relieve contractual liabilities, substitute parties, or extinguish the old contract,” we will not conclude that a party to the first contract has waived its right to sue for breach of the first contract.

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=101402.rhs&invol=2](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=101402.rhs&invol=2)

Given the paucity of facts supporting an intention to create a new contract, I’d argue there was no novation. If this was a general business law class, though, I’d also entertain the theory that the person who wrote the exam doesn’t realize there’s a difference and analyze it as an accord and satisfaction. Note that under the U.C.C. the check itself doesn’t have to have the accord and satisfaction wording on it. Also, some states have more specific provisions about accord and satisfaction by check.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/9 "2008-12-05T21:34:43Z")

</div>

> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> 1. No. “Reasonable accomodation” means they essentially have to give her the day off unless the request itself is unreasonable based on their business - ie., they’re only open Sunday and Tuesday, for example. She can request religious accomodation at any time, not just at the time of hire, and so long as the employer has no reason to doubt her sincerity, she’ll win her suit.

Not quite right.

> [@](#):
>
> A reasonable accommodation is one that eliminates the employee’s conflict between his religious practices and work requirements and that does not cause an undue hardship for the employer.

[http://www.adl.org/religious\_freedom/resource\_kit/religion\_workplace.asp](http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp)

> [@](#):
>
> Undue hardship essentially means that the accommodation involves more than an ordinary administrative cost of accommodating the employee’s religious beliefs. . . . .Generally, reasonable accommodation without undue hardship is possible where a voluntary and substantially similar substitute is available.

[http://www.mfc.org/resources/backgrounders/workplace.htm](http://www.mfc.org/resources/backgrounders/workplace.htm)

Nevertheless, offering nothing, as in this case, is unlikely to constitute a reasonable accommodation, and unless there’s a seniority system or union contract, there’s no reason the employer couldn’t simply move the shifts around without asking for volunteers.

> **[Offering later Sunday shift not a reasonable accommodation for religious...](http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-answers/Offering-later-Sunday-shift-not-a-reasonable-accommodation-for-religious-practice.asp?date=June-26-2006)**
>
> HR Issues & Answers -- weekly news stories that provide practical answers, based on current laws, to everyday HR issues.

[http://www.hecouncil.org/node/2380](http://www.hecouncil.org/node/2380)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/10 "2008-12-05T22:16:59Z")

</div>

> [@Gfactor](#):
>
> Not quite right.
> 
> Nevertheless, offering nothing, as in this case, is unlikely to constitute a reasonable accommodation, and unless there’s a seniority system or union contract, there’s no reason the employer couldn’t simply move the shifts around without asking for volunteers.

I’m going to clarify my answer here. It’s definitely not a reasonable accommodation because it does nothing to eliminate the conflict between the employee’s religious and work requirements. If that was the entire exam question, the correct answer is no. Assuming it was an essay question, I’d continue to explain that the employer doesn’t have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it presents an undue hardship, but the employer’s meager efforts would probably be insufficient to demonstrate that it would do so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/11 "2008-12-05T23:31:03Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> I had these two questions today on a test. While they might sound like GD material, they obviously had factual answers:
> 
> 1. Sally works for XYZ Corp. It is a 24/7/365 outfit. She has recently become a born again Christian and wants Sundays off. The company assigns days off on a seniority based system. The company goes so far as to ask for volunteers to work on Sunday for Sally. Nobody volunteers.
> 
> Sally sues her company. Did the employer make “reasonable accomodation”?

The employer has very little burden to make a reasonable accomodation - employers can avoid the duty to accomodate by claiming “undue hardship” – but the standard set by the Sup Ct. and the EEOC is absurdly low - basically “it’s inconvenient/it would cost more.”

_The EEOC has interpreted this to mean that an employer can show that a requested accommodation causes it an undue hardship if accommodating an employee’s religious practices requires anything more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation._  
[http://www.adl.org/religious\_freedom/resource\_kit/religion\_workplace.asp](http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp)

So, no they didn’t make a reasonable accommodation, and Sally will lose her lawsuit. I’m trying to remember the case, but it involved an airline and their efforts to accomodate were similarly pathetic, and they won.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/12 "2008-12-05T23:37:24Z")

</div>

Ah yes, it was Trans World Airlines v. Hardison - almost the exact fact pattern, the Supreme Court finding that forcing another employee to work the unwanted weekend shift in Plaintiff’s stead was an undue burden.  
[http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran\_v\_hard.html](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran_v_hard.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/13 "2008-12-06T00:04:19Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> 1. Dave owes Jack $700. Dave mails Jack a detailed letter asking him to accept $500 as payment in full and includes a $500 check with the letter. Jack cashes the check and sues Dave for $200.
> 
> Did cashing the check novate the contract, or does Dave still owe $200?
> 
> Thanks, guys

First I would want to know why Dave owes Jack the money. Did Jack ship goods to Dave? If so, then one would need to look at the UCC. If not, you need to look at common law.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Sally works for XYZ Corp. It is a 24/7/365 outfit. She has recently become a born again Christian and wants Sundays off. The company assigns days off on a seniority based system. The company goes so far as to ask for volunteers to work on Sunday for Sally. Nobody volunteers.
> 
> Sally sues her company. Did the employer make “reasonable accomodation”?

Again, there’s a threshhold question of which law is being applied. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? In New York City, what matters most is the New York City Human Rights Law, which says the following:

> [@](#):
>
> 1. The term “reasonable accommodation” means such accommodation that can be made that shall not cause undue hardship in the conduct of the covered entity’s business. The covered entity shall have the burden of proving undue hardship. In making a determination of undue hardship with respect to claims filed under subdivisions one or two of section 8-107 or section 8-107.1 of this chapter, the factors which may be considered include but shall not be limited to:  
> (a) The nature and cost of the accommodation;  
> (b) The overall financial resources of the facility or the faculties involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;  
> (c) The overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees, the number, type, and location of its facilities; and  
> (d) The type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity.

So one would need to no more about the circumstances to evaluate things.

It seems to me that your professor may be oversimplifying things a bit.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/14 "2008-12-06T00:13:18Z")

</div>

> [@Hello\_Again](#):
>
> Ah yes, it was Trans World Airlines v. Hardison - almost the exact fact pattern, the Supreme Court finding that forcing another employee to work the unwanted weekend shift in Plaintiff’s stead was an undue burden.  
> [http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran\_v\_hard.html](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran_v_hard.html)

The case you cited included a union contract, and the union declined to exempt Plaintiff from the seniority system. Forcing another employee to work the shift Plaintiff found problematic would have violated the collective bargaining agreement. Those matters are not mentioned in the OP’s question. I’m not saying that the outcome necessarily changes, but it is a significant difference…enough to at least argue that the cited case is not controlling.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/15 "2008-12-06T00:15:04Z")

</div>

> [@Hello\_Again](#):
>
> Ah yes, it was Trans World Airlines v. Hardison - almost the exact fact pattern, the Supreme Court finding that forcing another employee to work the unwanted weekend shift in Plaintiff’s stead was an undue burden.  
> [http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran\_v\_hard.html](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran_v_hard.html)

This is a harder case because \*Hardison \*involved a CBA and a seniority system. Neither of those are in the hypothetical.

> [@](#):
>
> Our conclusion is supported by the fact that seniority systems are afforded special treatment under Title VII itself. Section 703 (h) provides in pertinent part:  
> “Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment [432 U.S. 63, 82] pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system . . . provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 (h).
> 
> “[T]he unmistakable purpose of 703 (h) was to make clear that the routine application of a bona fide seniority system would not be unlawful under Title VII.” Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 352 (1977). See also United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 (1977). Section 703 (h) is “a definitional provision; as with the other provisions of 703, subsection (h) delineates which employment practices are illegal and thereby prohibited and which are not.” Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 758 (1976). Thus, absent a discriminatory purpose, the operation of a seniority system cannot be an unlawful employment practice even if the system has some discriminatory consequences.
> 
> There has been no suggestion of discriminatory intent in this case. “The seniority system was not designed with the intention to discriminate against religion nor did it act to lock members of any religion into a pattern wherein their freedom to exercise their religion was limited. It was coincidental that in plaintiff’s case the seniority system acted to compound his problems in exercising his religion.” 375 F. Supp., at 883. The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that TWA was not limited by the terms of its seniority system was in substance nothing more than a ruling that operation of the seniority system was itself an unlawful employment practice even though no discriminatory purpose had been shown. That ruling is plainly inconsistent with the dictates of 703 (h), both on its face and as interpreted in the recent decisions of this Court. 13 [432 U.S. 63, 83]  
> As we have said, TWA was not required by Title VII to carve out a special exception to its seniority system in order to help Hardison to meet his religious obligations.

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=432&invol=63](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=432&invol=63)

and

> [@](#):
>
> Hardison and the EEOC insist that the statutory obligation to accommodate religious needs takes precedence over both the collective-bargaining contract and the seniority rights of TWA’s other employees. We agree that neither a collective-bargaining contract nor a seniority system may be employed to violate the statute, 12 but we do not believe that the duty to accommodate requires TWA to take steps inconsistent with the otherwise valid agreement. Collective bargaining, aimed at effecting workable and enforceable agreements between management and labor, lies at the core of our national labor policy, and seniority provisions are universally included in these contracts. Without a clear and express indication from Congress, we cannot agree with Hardison and the EEOC that an agreed-upon seniority system must give way when necessary to accommodate religious observances. The issue is important and warrants some discussion. [432 U.S. 63, 80]
> 
> Any employer who, like TWA, conducts an around-the-clock operation is presented with the choice of allocating work schedules either in accordance with the preferences of its employees or by involuntary assignment. Insofar as the varying shift preferences of its employees complement each other, TWA could meet its manpower needs through voluntary work scheduling. In the present case, for example, Hardison’s supervisor foresaw little difficulty in giving Hardison his religious holidays off since they fell on days that most other employees preferred to work, while Hardison was willing to work on the traditional holidays that most other employees preferred to have off.
> 
> Whenever there are not enough employees who choose to work a particular shift, however, some employees must be assigned to that shift even though it is not their first choice. Such was evidently the case with regard to Saturday work; even though TWA cut back its weekend work force to a skeleton crew, not enough employees chose those days off to staff the Stores Department through voluntary scheduling. In these circumstances, TWA and IAM agreed to give first preference to employees who had worked in a particular department the longest.
> 
> Had TWA nevertheless circumvented the seniority system by relieving Hardison of Saturday work and ordering a senior employee to replace him, it would have denied the latter his shift preference so that Hardison could be given his. The senior employee would also have been deprived of his contractual rights under the collective-bargaining agreement.

_Hardison_ did reject the idea of giving the employee a four-day week and filling his Sundays with supervisory personnel, qualified personnel from other departments, or other available employees through the payment of premium wages, speaking very broadly in the process. This part of the opinion supports the employer in this case:

> [@](#):
>
> To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship. Like abandonment of the seniority system, to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion. By suggesting that TWA should incur certain costs in order to give Hardison Saturdays off the Court of Appeals would in effect require TWA to finance an additional Saturday off and then to choose the employee who will enjoy it on the basis of his religious beliefs. While incurring extra costs to secure a replacement for Hardison might remove the necessity of compelling another employee to work involuntarily in Hardison’s place, it would not change the fact that the privilege of having Saturdays off would be allocated according to religious beliefs.

This last sentence offers another defense for the employer. Scheduling other employees on the plaintiff’s holidays is another form of discrimination. We had a thread about this issue a while back.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/16 "2008-12-06T00:21:20Z")

</div>

> [@brazil84](#):
>
> First I would want to know why Dave owes Jack the money. Did Jack ship goods to Dave? If so, then one would need to look at the UCC. If not, you need to look at common law.

The UCC is not law anywhere. You’d actually have to look at the state statutes. As far as I know, all states have adopted the UCC, but there is some variation in the UCC and the versions adopted in some states. There may also be Article 9 issues to consider–the OP’s question does not say whether this was a secured transaction.

Of course, to be fair, this is an undergraduate course, and the OP’s prof probably did not anticipate having his questions nit-picked by a bunch of lawyers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/17 "2008-12-06T00:26:35Z")

</div>

> [@Gfactor](#):
>
> This is a harder case because \*Hardison \*involved a CBA and a seniority system. Neither of those are in the hypothetical.

There is a seniority system in the hypo.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/18 "2008-12-06T00:31:01Z")

</div>

> [@Hello\_Again](#):
>
> There is a seniority system in the hypo.

Oops. My bad.

In that case, Sundays off might not even be a reasonable accommodation.

> [@](#):
>
> It would be anomalous to conclude that by “reasonable accommodation” Congress meant that an employer must deny the shift and job preference of some employees, as well as deprive them of their contractual rights, in order to accommodate or prefer the religious needs of others, and we conclude that Title VII does not require an employer to go that far.

_Hardison_ 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/19 "2008-12-06T01:53:30Z")

</div>

> [@Oakminster](#):
>
> The UCC is not law anywhere.

I’m not sure what this means, since most (all?) states have adopted the UCC. People frequently use the phrase “UCC” to mean “the version of the UCC which has been adopted in the relevant jurisdiction.”

But you are right, the “U” in UCC is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, I believe that not every state adopted UCC provision which deals with this situation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912/20 "2008-12-06T03:02:36Z")

</div>

> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I’m not sure what this means, since most (all?) states have adopted the UCC. People frequently use the phrase “UCC” to mean “the version of the UCC which has been adopted in the relevant jurisdiction.”

The UCC itself is not law. The version which has been adopted in a particular jurisdiction is law. That’s all I meant.

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/business-law-questions/475912.md?page=2)