Challenges in Cyber Security for Business

This article discusses the challenges in cyber security for businesses and how to overcome them. It explores the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and how it applies to business transactions. The article also examines the relevance of UCC sections in guiding parties to a conclusion and the importance of incorporating termination and cure sections in contracts. The conclusion highlights the importance of reviewing contracts thoroughly and taking the correct procedures in case of contract failure.

UNIVERSITY NAME
Student’s name
Student’s ID
Challenges in Cyber Security for Business

Introduction
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) contains various sections of articles that protects
farmers, consumers and buyers classified under specific group against breaking the rules of
carrying out transactions in business. The articles applies as a measure of security in sale of
products and services, source of security for all transactions carried out and secured
termination and cancellation of contracts for parties involved in case of any (Saunders,and
Rymsza ). According to UCC articles, will be able to determine which party prevails in the
case of Johnson the merchant and MFA the buyer. Since both party had signed an agreement
and enter into a contract of transaction of 6000 bushels of soybeans.
Is a farmer a merchant under UCC?
According to article 2 sections 104 of the UCC, a merchant is defined as a person who
deals with various types of goods and services that he or she has full knowledge about the
particular product or services they are dealing with and is engaged in the transactions. In case
a broker, intermediary or an agent is involved in performing the transaction on behalf of the
merchant, they should also have the same knowledge or skills. In this scenario, the Farmer
(Johnson) is therefore considered a merchant because he had full knowledge of his products
the soybeans that he sold to MFA. To add to that, Johnson was also involved in the
transaction by selling the soybeans to MFA directly.
How relevant sections of UCC will guide the parties to a conclusion.
Article 2 sections 105 of Part 2 of UCC, requires a mutual agreement to be made
when parties involved in transactions are getting in to a contract. Therefore no contract can
work without an agreement witnessed by both parties. In this case, Johnson entered into an
agreement and signed a contract with MFA to deliver 6000 bushels of soybeans to MFA

within an agreed period of time. However, Johnson did not conform to the agreement made
and he failed to deliver the required amount of bushel of soybeans. According to this section
therefore, MFA had the right to withheld payment that was to be made to Johnson, since he
failed to conform to the agreement. (Shabani)
Contract for sale states clearly that it includes either the sale of services and particular
goods in the present or an agreement made through a contract to sale same goods or services
in future. Article 2 sections 105 also states that termination of contract only occurs when one
of the party that is pursuant to the law puts an end to the contract. Where as in this case, no
pursuant law was involved in terminating the contract, instead, the merchant just decided not
to deliver the products as they had agree thus breaking the law of contract(Wagner). The
same section states that, for cancellation of contract to occur, one of the parties must put to an
end the contract for breach by the other party involved.
Johnson in this scenario however, did not follow all the procedure of terminating the
contract or cancelling it. This gives MFA all the rights to withhold his payments until when
they will come to an agreement of compensation for the loss incurred. If Johnson could take a
step of informing MFA about the change of market price and request for an increase of
amount to be paid, then if MFA would have assumed and still pay Johnson a less amount,
Johnson would therefore have the right to file a petition against MFA for not conforming to
his request. But since Johnson never took that step instead he opt to throw away the contract
in an informal way, he is therefore liable for his actions. (Degrand)
According to common sales law, parties involved in the contract are always advised to
incorporate the termination and cure sections in their actions. For instance, Johnson in this
case should have followed the law and terminate the contract earlier in order for him to avoid
contract pitfall. However, Johnson never applied this section in his process, instead he only

concentrated on negotiating for the contract and payment, but he did not take keen action of
signing a written agreement that would have protected him from the negative outcome. The
sales law under UCC clearly states that, failure of either party to sign the contract document
with properly written agreement always ends up in disagreements, late payments and
inflexibility in delivery dates that eventually results to contract failure.
This disagreement results in wastage of time, resources and money because an extra
cost is experienced in such scenario. If the merchant would have taken extra time to review
the contract thoroughly up to the final word of the agreement, get prepared for either a
negative or positive feedback, expanded his review of what was in the contract, referenced
other documents to avoid confusion and ambiguity, he would have overcome the contract
pitfall.(Gerhard)
Conclusion
Johnson once he received the contract was excited and went ahead with the
transaction meaning he had agreed to the terms of the contract. He never took time to go
through it and understand the number of bushels sold. After doing the delivery and some part
of his payment not made, that is when he realised the mistake made. However, According to
article 2 section 106 part 2 of the UCC, in order for a contract sale to take place, there must
be a mutual agreement and a contract which is to be used both for present and future sale. In
case one of the parties fails to conform to the agreement within given time frame, then that
particular is liable to the consequences (Dolan). Johnson in this case did not conform to the
agreement, and therefore making MFA withheld his payment. If Johnson could apply the
correct procedure after realising his mistake and terminate the contract according to article 2
section 106 parts 3 of UCC, he will then have the right to file a lawsuit against MFA for

refusing to pay him. Since Johnson never takes any action according to UCC, MFA therefore
prevails under the UCC. (Nam)

References
DeGrand, Luke. "The Demise Of The 'You Break It, You Bought It' Rule In The Seventh
Circuit: Lost Profit And Overhead Damages Under The UCC". SSRN Electronic
Journal, 2010. Elsevier BV, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1553434.
Dolan, John. "Letter Of Credit Litigation Under UCC Article 5: A Case Of Statutory
Preemption". SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011. Elsevier BV, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1963240.
Nam, Suk-Hee. "The Suggestion On The Application Of UCC Contents". Journal Of The
Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, vol 11, no. 11, 2010, pp. 4182-
4187. The Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society,
doi:10.5762/kais.2010.11.11.4182.
Saunders, Kurt M., and Leonard Rymsza. "Contract Formation And Performance Under The
UCC And CISG: A Comparative Case Study". Journal Of Legal Studies Education, vol
32, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-46. Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1111/jlse.12021.
Shabani, Faton. "Termination Of The Contract: Principles Of European Contract Law And
The Law On Obligations Of The Republic Of Macedonia". Mediterranean Journal Of
Social Sciences, 2015. Walter De Gruyter Gmbh, doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p307.
Gerhard. "Termination And Cure Under The Common European Sales Law: Avoiding
Pitfalls In Contract Remedies". SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012. Elsevier BV,
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2083049.