Harvest Rice, Inc. v. Fritz And Mertice Lehman Elevator And Dryer, Inc.

231 S.W.3d 720 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, who is in the business of buying, selling, and milling rice, orally negotiated to purchase 67,500 hundredweights of rough rice from D, a grain elevator at $ 5.10 per hundredweight plus shipping costs. Gerald Loyd, a principal P employee, negotiated with Park Eldridge, a co-owner of D. On April 1, 2003, Loyd faxed a buyer report to Eldridge containing the quantity, price, date of delivery, and other terms. Eldridge claims he did not see the faxed copy of the buyer report until several days later because his fax machine was out of paper. On April 15, 2003, Eldridge faxed a letter to P, objecting to the terms of the buyer report and informing Harvest that he would be unable to make the sale of rice at the desired levels. P demanded D perform. There is no signed, written contract between P and D. On May 5, 2003, P filed a complaint, alleging breach of contract, and prayed for damages in the amount of cost, or, in the alternative, the difference in market price at the time appellant learned of the breach. D pled the Statute of Frauds, waiver, estoppel, set off, and a failure to mitigate damages. D filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The circuit court granted D's motion for summary judgment and dismissed P's complaint with prejudice. The court held the buyer report did not have clear, confirmatory language that is required to sustain the merchants' exception under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-201(2). P appealed.