Okay I'm confused with the UCC-201 (3)
Under UCC, Statute of Frauds can be satisfied by:
1.Some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made
between
the parties;
2.specifying the quantity of the goods to be sold; and
3.signed by or on behalf of the party to be charged.
So in this example
Bob enters in to an oral agreement to buy a computer from Kevin a
merchant for $5000. The next day Kevin sends two copies of a "purchase
memorandum" which one is to be signed by Bob and returned to Kevin. The
memorandum states all the terms in the oral agreement. Bob never sends a
signed
memorandum to Kevin. Kevin delivers the computer but Bob refuses it
on delivery. Kevin brings a suit to Bob for breach of contract.
My question is, does Bob need to sign the memorandum for the contract
to be enforced?
Yes. His signature is needed on the memorandum or on some other writing.
Right now I'm thinking Bob needs to sign it for the contract to be
valid.
Right. His signature is needed on the memorandum or on some other writing.
Since the contract is in writing both parties need to sign it.
Therefore the contract would not be enforced.
No. Only Bob's signature is required. He is the one "to be charged"
(sued).
My next question is what if Bob sent a signed letter to Kevin
canceling the order. Then Kevin brings suit to Bob for breach of
contract..
I'm not sure for this one but I think Kevin would win because since
Bob sent the letter of cancellation he is acknowleding that the two
has entered into a contract. Therefore it satifies the Statute of
frauds and the contract would be enforced.
You're right IF the cancellation letter contains the quantity of the goods
to be sold.
McGyver
