Contracts Assignment #4

Statement of Facts

Wally, the proprietor of Windy City Watches, Men's Jewelry Store in Chicago, Illinois, needs to order a large quantity of Roleq watches which Wally sells for fifty dollars ($50.00) a piece. Wally calls Randy Ripoff a wholesaler from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who is a Roleq supplier. Wally and Randy discussed terms to purchase one hundred (100) watches for a total of two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) at twenty five dollars ($25.00) per watch. An order form from Randy to Wally was signed and received that Wally agreed to one hundred (100) watches at twenty five dollars ($25.00) per watch. One week later Randy sent Wally a package containing fifty (50) watches and a note containing the remainder will be sent in a few days with a bill of sale for one hundred (100) watches totaling two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). By the time Wally received the fifty (50) watches he has changed his mind about buying the watches, calls Randy and tells him that he will sent back the watches and he is willing to reimburse the shipping expenses, but cannot pay for the watches. As a result, Randy sues Wally in Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enforce the original agreement.

Issue U.C.C. Statute of Frauds for the Northern District of Illinois Section 810 ILCS 5/2-201 states that Randy is correct stating that Wally signed the form, so the contract is in writing and under the U.C.C. Statute of Frauds for the Northern District of Illinois Section 810 ILCS 5/2-201 was satisfied by performance when Randy sent the original fifty (50) watches? Or is Wally correct in arguing that under U.C.C. Statute of Frauds for the Northern District of Illinois Section 810 ILCS 5/2-201 the agreement is unenforceable because it was never reduced to writing.

Rule The U.C.C. Statute of Frauds for the Northern District of Illinois Section 810 ILCS 5/2-201 states that under Monetti,, S.p.A. v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4351 (N.D. Ill. 4/13/1990) Defendant seller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in an action brought by Plaintiff manufacturer pursuant to a distribution agreement. The court granted the seller's Motion for Summary Judgment as to any portion of the alleged contract no performed. Horbach v. Kaczmarek, F. Supp. 981 (N.D. Ill. 1996) the Defendant's corporation and officer filed for a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's action for fraud and breach of contract under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-206 (1992); The Illinois U.C.C. 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2/-725 (1) (1992); and 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-205 (1992). The court decided to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Action for Fraud. Head notes Number two and Number eight of All the Chips, Inc. V. Oki America, Inc. 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15600 (N.D. Ill. December 27, 1989). In Illinois, whether or not a contract has been formed between two parties for the sale of goods is governed by Section 2-204 of U.C.C. Section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code contains the Uniform Commercial Code writing requirement. The general rule provides that a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more is not enforceable by way or action of defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale that has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

Analysis In reference to Monetti,, S.p.A. v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4351 (N.D. Ill. 4/13/1990) the manufacturer brought an action against the seller pursuant to a distribution agreement. This relates to Wally v. Randy Ripoff because the court noted that the application of the Statute of Frauds to undisputed facts involved a question of law. Meaning Randy when he sent the watches the U.C.C. Statute of Frauds was satisfied. Under the Uniform Commercial Code the Statute of Frauds was applied where the predominant