Case Of Chase Pitkin

1124 Words5 Pages
Chase Pitkin, a deck furniture retailer, ordered by telephone $50,000 worth of deck furniture from DeckCo, a deck furniture manufacturer. DeckCo then faxed Chase Pitkin an acknowledgment form, which confirmed the quantity, price and date of delivery to which they had agreed on the telephone. On the specified delivery date, DeckCo delivered the furniture to Chase Pitkin and Chase Pitkin refused delivery claiming that that the oral agreement was unenforceable. Is Chase Pitkin correct? Explain. Issue: The issue in this case is that whether the oral agreement between Chase Pitkin and DeckCo needs to be in writing in order to be enforceable according to the Statute of Frauds. Rules: First, Goods are tangible and movable [UCC 2-205(1)]. A sale is the passing of title of “goods” to/from a merchant for a price [UCC 2-106(1)]. If the case is about the sale of goods, UCC Article 2 applies [UCC 2-102]. Second, as the general contract rule states, any contract needs to have four requirements to be enforceable, namely agreement, consideration, capacity and legality. Third, the Statute of Frauds requires that sales contracts for goods priced at $500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable [UCC 2-201(1)]. Fourth, UCC provides a special rule for contracts between merchants. Merchants can satisfy the Statute of Frauds if, after the parties have agreed orally, one of the merchants sends a signed written confirmation to the other merchant within a reasonable time, or he can send an email confirmation of the agreement. Unless the merchant who receives the confirmation gives written notice of objection to its contents within ten days after receipt, the writing is sufficient against the receiving merchant, even though she or he has not signed it [UCC2-201(2)]. Finally, there are some exceptions to the writing requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Firstly, an oral
Open Document