Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.

185 F. Supp. 165 (1960)

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

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.