This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.