Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Capital (D) and Riley (P) began to do business with P supplying water methanol for D's turboprop aircraft. These dealings were consummated orally. About one year later, P received a blanket purchase order from D. Deliveries up to that time were received and P invoiced D for each individual delivery. Subsequently, D's employee made a 5-year contract with P and issued blanket purchase orders. D denies the existence of this agreement. Shortly after making the alleged contract, P purchased additional storage tanks. Then P was invited to bid on a five-year contract for the supply of the mixture. P lost that bid, and the blanket purchase orders were terminated as of September 1, 1958. P sued. The trial court determined that a contract existed between the parties but had to determine if the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds. P claimed that it was under the UCC statute of frauds in that the goods were especially manufactured goods.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co