Top Law Schools

Say a contract for the sale of a unique item leaves the price terms open, and the reasonable price for that item would range between $300-$600 based on subjectively determined aesthetic qualities.

Because the sale doesn't necessarily exceed $500, does the contract need to be in writing?

Updated UCC provision doesn't have a monetary reference.

Is this revision just a draft, or has it been officially accepted? I have the $500 requirement written in my class notes, and it's listed in my 2008 casebook. My question stems from my professor's exam from the fall semester last year, so all that considered I feel she may write a SOF issue with the $500 requirement in mind.

If the new provision is definitely in effect, how would the old provision apply to my hypo?

Copyright 2005, on Cornell's website.

I don't know, we barely touched Statute of Frauds - getting into that next semester.

Do you mean this? http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-201.html

I think it's mentioned in subsection 1.

Fuck me. I thought the Statute of Frauds was 2-207. Completely disregard my dumb ass.


But remember, the UCC is looking for contracts. If something is unclear, unless it's way out there, best to assume it will form a contract.

Whew! I started to doubt my entire understanding of 2-201 for a second there.

I outlined statute of frauds UCC regular and merchants, want a copy?

evilxs wrote:I outlined statute of frauds UCC regular and merchants, want a copy?

yes please!

pm me email addy

Yeah I'll take one too if you can! Check your PMs.

Diet_Coke wrote:Say a contract for the sale of a unique item leaves the price terms open, and the reasonable price for that item would range between $300-$600 based on subjectively determined aesthetic qualities.

Because the sale doesn't necessarily exceed $500, does the contract need to be in writing?

From my understanding, UCC 2-201 requires any good that exceeds 500 to be in some form of writing. However, you should know that courts are reluctant to apply SOF when there is evidence that the parties intended to K. If there was performance, or the item is unique enough (your name is embedded on the good), or there is some written evidence (corresponding emails) then the SOF will not be applicable as a defense.

You problem is a little more tricky because it varies b/w 300-600 dollars. I think the relevance of the SOF here would be determined what the other party paid for the item, not what they thought the item was worth. JMO. Could be wrong...

soaponarope wrote:

Diet_Coke wrote:Say a contract for the sale of a unique item leaves the price terms open, and the reasonable price for that item would range between $300-$600 based on subjectively determined aesthetic qualities.

Because the sale doesn't necessarily exceed $500, does the contract need to be in writing?

From my understanding, UCC 2-201 requires any good that exceeds 500 to be in some form of writing. However, you should know that courts are reluctant to apply SOF when there is evidence that the parties intended to K. If there was performance, or the item is unique enough (your name is embedded on the good), or there is some written evidence (corresponding emails) then the SOF will not be applicable as a defense.

You problem is a little more tricky because it varies b/w 300-600 dollars. I think the relevance of the SOF here would be determined what the other party paid for the item, not what they thought the item was worth. JMO. Could be wrong...

Yeah, everything on her exam question was so ambiguous. The supposed contract was for a sale of unique driftwood "no two alike" purchased by a builder to grind and press into plywood. Size, type, aesthetic appeal, and intended use, and finish are considered in determining the price, but the parties never got that far because the seller backed out after she discovered what the purchaser was going to do with it. The possible agreement took place over the phone, and the purchaser sent his payment info in an email a couple days later. The seller just blew off confirmation emails, and another which stated that the buyer would spend $X in preparation for receiving the wood.

So my main issues are basically whether the phone conversation constituted an oral agreement, and if so was that agreement subject to the SOF (determined by the unknown final price).

If the offeror and offeree never determined an agreed-upon price, it's arguable there was no oral contract to begin with bc essential terms are missing, and thus no "in" or "out" of SoF at all.

jay115 wrote:If the offeror and offeree never determined an agreed-upon price, it's arguable there was no oral contract to begin with bc essential terms are missing, and thus no "in" or "out" of SoF at all.

There are gap filler provisions for price under the UCC... And my prof said frequently, "you don't need price to determine there is a contract."

I thought SOF was 5 k? Lol.