A clothing maker’s contract provides returns only for non-coquelicot colored t−shirts, yet a store argues past practice allowed returns of coquelicot shirts. The court should do which of the following?

• A. Exclude any evidence of past practice.
• B. Admit all past practice to show merchant’s flexibility.
• C. Admit the past practice to show the merchant’s acceptance of such returns in the past.
• D. Admit only evidence regarding the past handling of coquelicot shirts.

Answer: (C)

The key idea here is how prior dealings between the same merchant and buyer can interpret a contract term. Under the UCC, evidence of a course of dealing shows how the parties have acted in the past and helps explain what the contract means and how it’s to be applied. If there’s a history of accepting returns for coquelicot shirts, that past practice documents the parties’ actual dealings and can illuminate that the term about returns isn’t meant to be strictly rigid in this relationship.

Admitting the past practice to show the merchant’s acceptance of such returns in the past makes sense because it demonstrates a consistent pattern between the parties. It supports interpreting the contract in light of their established dealings, rather than treating the express limit as an absolute, one-time directive that never reflects real-world practice.

Other options would either sidestep relevant evidence or overreach by importing all past practices or restricting the evidence too narrowly, which would fail to capture how these parties actually conducted themselves in prior transactions.