RILEY V. CAPITAL AIRLINES, INC.
185 F. Supp. 165 (1960)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over an oral five-year contract to supply water
methanol.
FACTS: Capital (D) and Riley (P) began to do business with P supplying water methanol for
D's turbo prop 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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment