mcat4life87 wrote:Can anyone help me with this hypothetical?
On July 1, ABC, a maker of children's toys, and Bobo orally agreed to a contract under which ABC promised to manufacture and deliver 100 model train sets to Bobo at a unit price of $95 per set. Bobo ordered the trains as part of a long-planned venture into the retail toy trade. On July 14, ABC sent Butler the following note:
"Just a note to confirm that we will provide you with the 50 special train sets for $95 each as we agreed to on July 1. ABC"
On July 18, Bobo discovered that he could purchase a comparable set from XYZ at a cheaper price. So on July 20, Bobo replied to ABC with a note:
"I thought we agreed on 75 trains, but no matter, b/c I've decided that I no longer want them. Hope to do business in the future. Signed, Bobo"
Can Bobo successfully use Statute of Frauds as defense?
End of Hypothetical.
I haven't done an exam question yet, and am curious to see what are the issues I should be spotting in a question like this. Thanks in advance!!
The key here is that ABC promised to MANUFACTURE the train sets. If you go by the facts, they imply that the train sets are not pre-made and thus need to be specially manufactured (specially manufactured goods are an exception to the SOF, so the oral agreement is binding). If the ABC already started building the train sets then all the other conversations are pointless and a contract exists for 100 train sets. If not then the other conversations come into play.
There is another caveat that is not SOF, there seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the quantity of train sets. Both parties are equally responsible for this misunderstanding, and an essential K term (quantity) is involved. It is possible that the contract is void because of this.