<img width="284" height="313" class="FloatRight" alt="MeadowsWorkshopPromo" src="/site/files/oldnewsfiles/MeadowsWorkshopPromo.jpg">On Thursday, February 26th, Professor <a href="/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesHbg/MeadowsRobynL.aspx">Robyn Meadows</a> spoke to fellow faculty members about her work to examine Uniform Commercial Code section 2-207 and come up with better language to address the ambiguities of the current language. Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code deals with the conflict between standard form contracts that result in binding agreements, and thus is often referred to as the “Battle of the Forms.”<br><br>Professor Meadows opened with a brief history of section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, noting that Pennsylvania was the first state to adopt section 2-207 in 1955. Previously, whichever party had submitted the last form received preference when it came to whose terms were honored. In 1987, an attempt to amend Article 2 of the U.C.C began, but the effort never gained enough traction, and eventually it died off without having been accepted in a single state.<br><br>“What I want to do,” asserted Professor Meadows, “is propose a version of 2-207 that’s better than either of these.” She then considered the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980, or CISG, noting, “The problem with CISG is that it presumes a model of contract negotiation that is unrealistic.” While the United Nations convention offered no support, she still felt that looking internationally might help find a solution, saying, “My thought – where I’m going – is that we should look internationally to see what other countries are doing.”<br><br>Professor Meadows received several helpful comments and suggestions from the faculty members in attendance, and noted that she looked forward to including those suggestions in her continuing research.