Unless it is expressly specified that an offer to buy or sell goods must be accepted just as made, the offeree may accept an offer and at the same time propose an additional term. This is contrary to general contract law. Under general contract law, the proposed additional term would be considered a counteroffer and the original offer would be rejected. Under Article 2 of the UCC, the new term does not reject the original offer. A contract arises on the terms of the original offer, and the new term is a counteroffer. The new term does not become binding until accepted by the original offeror. If, however, the offer states that it must be accepted exactly as made, the ordinary contract law rules apply.
In a transaction between merchants, the additional term becomes part of the contract if that term does not materially alter the offer and no objection is made to it. However, if such an additional term from the seller operates solely to the seller’s advantage, it is a material term and must be accepted by the buyer to be effective. A buyer may expressly or by conduct agree to a term added by the seller to the acceptance of the buyer‘s offer. The buyer may agree orally or in writing to the additional term. There is an acceptance by conduct if the buyer accepts the goods with knowledge that the term has been added by the seller.
Arkansas Merchant's Objection to Additional Term refers to a situation where merchants in the state of Arkansas express their opposition towards the inclusion of extra conditions or requirements in their business contracts. This objection usually arises when merchants believe that the additional terms proposed by the other party are unfair, unreasonable, or detrimental to their businesses. Merchants in Arkansas might object to additional terms for a variety of reasons. One common objection is related to the financial implications of the proposed terms. Merchants are concerned about the potential burden that additional costs, fees, or penalties might place on their already strained bottom lines. They argue that these terms could adversely affect their ability to operate profitably and provide quality products or services to their customers. Another objection raised by Arkansas merchants revolves around the impact that additional terms might have on their autonomy and flexibility in managing their businesses. Merchants value their independence and the ability to make decisions that align with their specific business models and customer demands. They argue that imposing extra terms could restrict their freedom to adapt, innovate, or negotiate different terms in a rapidly changing marketplace. Furthermore, Arkansas merchants might object to additional terms if they create asymmetrical obligations or disproportionately shift risks onto their businesses. They argue that contract terms should be fair and balanced, protecting the rights and interests of all parties involved. Merchants may view certain additional terms as one-sided or favoring the other party, leading to potential imbalances and difficulties in contract enforcement. In certain cases, Arkansas merchants might identify specific types of objections to additional terms. For instance, they might object to provisions that require them to purchase additional goods or services from a specific supplier. They argue that such requirements limit their freedom to explore alternative suppliers or negotiate better deals in the market. Another type of objection is related to contract duration. Merchants might oppose proposed terms that extend the contract period without justified reasons, as this could prevent them from seeking better opportunities or terminating contracts that no longer bring value to their businesses. To summarize, Arkansas Merchant's Objection to Additional Term signifies the opposition expressed by merchants in Arkansas towards the inclusion of extra conditions in business contracts that they perceive as unfair, burdensome, or limiting their autonomy. These objections are often driven by concerns over financial implications, loss of flexibility, and imbalanced contractual obligations. Different types of objections can be identified, such as objections to purchasing requirements and objectionable contract durations.
