Thomson Printing Machinery Co. v. B. F. Goodrich Co. case brief
summary
714 F.2d 744 (1983)
CASE FACTS
After oral negotiations with appellee's agent, appellant sent appellee a written purchase order for the goods and partial payment. Several weeks after sending its order, appellant contacted agent as to the status of the goods, which had been sold to another. Appellant initiated suit against appellee for breach of contract. Appellee argued that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the contract; appellant averred that the "merchants exception," Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.04(B), to the statute of frauds were applicable and satisfied. The jury found for appellant, but the court entered judgment for appellee on statute of frauds grounds.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court reversed, holding that because appellee received from appellant a confirmation in writing, and because appellee had reason to know of the writing's contents, and because appellee failed to give appellant timely notice of objection, the writing satisfied the statute of frauds, under § 1302.04(B).
CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed; because appellee received from appellant a confirmation in writing, and because appellee had reason to know of the writing's contents, and because appellee failed to give appellant timely notice of objection, the writing satisfied the statute of frauds and appellee was liable for breach of the underlying contract.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
714 F.2d 744 (1983)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant challenged a judgment from
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, that reversed appellant's jury verdict in
its action for breach of contract against appellee for failing to
satisfy the statute of frauds. Appellant contended Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. § 1302.04(B) applied.CASE FACTS
After oral negotiations with appellee's agent, appellant sent appellee a written purchase order for the goods and partial payment. Several weeks after sending its order, appellant contacted agent as to the status of the goods, which had been sold to another. Appellant initiated suit against appellee for breach of contract. Appellee argued that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the contract; appellant averred that the "merchants exception," Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.04(B), to the statute of frauds were applicable and satisfied. The jury found for appellant, but the court entered judgment for appellee on statute of frauds grounds.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court reversed, holding that because appellee received from appellant a confirmation in writing, and because appellee had reason to know of the writing's contents, and because appellee failed to give appellant timely notice of objection, the writing satisfied the statute of frauds, under § 1302.04(B).
CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed; because appellee received from appellant a confirmation in writing, and because appellee had reason to know of the writing's contents, and because appellee failed to give appellant timely notice of objection, the writing satisfied the statute of frauds and appellee was liable for breach of the underlying contract.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment