Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
them to.
Procedural History/Issue: -In a special verdict, the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $21,000. -Defendant filed for N/O/V and was denied. -Defendant appealed the NOV denial to the COA. Issue: Did the jury err in enforcing the contract? Holding/Rule: No. The Court did not err in enforcing the contract. Although the contract did not satisfy the statute of frauds, it was nonetheless enforceable under the doctrine of part performance. Judgment: no error. Reasoning/Rationale: Because the sale of the barns involves the sale of goods for at least $500, the agreement falls under the statute of frauds provision in the UCC. A check may satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds if it contains sufficient writing to indicate the contract of sale, is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, and indicates quantity. Because Defendant did not sign the check, it does not satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. Plaintiff argues that even though it does not satisfy the statute of frauds, the agreement should be enforced under the doctrine of part performance. The Court determines there is evidence whereby a jury could determine that the agreement is enforceable under part performance. Therefore, the Court upholds the jury verdict.