PJC Business

PJC 101.13

C ONTRACTS

PJC 101.13 Instruction on Price If Paul Payne and Don Davis agreed to other essential terms but failed to specify price, it is presumed a reasonable price was intended. COMMENT When to use. PJC 101.13 should accompany PJC 101.1 or 101.2 in appropriate cases. See Fischer v. CTMI, L.L.C. , 479 S.W.3d 231, 241 (Tex. 2016) (law’s presump tion that parties intended a reasonable price is particularly strong when the agreement specifies a formula or other basis on which a reasonable price may be determined); Sacks v. Haden , 266 S.W.3d 447, 450 (Tex. 2008); Bendalin v. Delgado , 406 S.W.2d 897, 900 (Tex. 1966). Source of instruction. The above instruction is derived from Fischer , 479 S.W.3d at 241, and Sacks , 266 S.W.3d at 450. UCC cases. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.305(a) (Tex. UCC) states: (a) The parties if they so intend can conclude a contract for sale even though the price is not settled. In such a case the price is a reasonable price at the time for delivery if (1) nothing is said as to price; or (2) the price is left to be agreed by the parties and they fail to agree; or

(3) the price is to be fixed in terms of some agreed market or other standard as set or recorded by a third person or agency and it is not so set or recorded.

66