A recent college graduate offered to buy all of the computers from a failing retailer for $10,000 for a 'reasonable number' of computers. The retailer had 50 computers; The graduate gave $10,000 and took 10 computers; When he demanded the other 40, the retailer refused. The court will likely dismiss because the contract is too indefinite.

• A. The contract is valid for 50 computers.
• B. The contract fails for indefiniteness because quantity cannot be determined.
• C. The contract is a requirements contract.
• D. The contract is enforceable under promissory estoppel.

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is that a contract for the sale of goods must specify or provide a workable method to determine quantity. Even though a price is set, the promise to purchase “a reasonable number” of computers leaves the actual quantity open-ended and undefined. Under the UCC, a quantity term can be valid if it fits an output or requirements contract with a clear basis for determining how much will be supplied or purchased, usually tied to a defined period and measured by actual demand or production. But this scenario has no time frame, no objective standard for what counts as a “reasonable number,” and no mechanism to translate that vague phrase into a definite quantity. That lack of a definite, objectively determinable quantity makes the contract too indefinite to enforce, so the court would dismiss it on that basis. The other ideas—that this fixes a specific total (50), or that it creates a valid requirements or output contract, or that promissory estoppel could rescue it—don’t fit because there isn’t a workable, defined method to determine how many computers must be bought or supplied, and the promise isn’t sufficiently definite.