At this point in our mission to “Learn the UCC”, we have discussed the first element in determining what a contract is under the Uniform Commercial Code: namely, the ‘agreement’ of the parties as determined by the application of the criteria stated in Section 1-203(b)(3).  As discussed in Blogs 4 – “What IS a Contract”  & 5 – “Course of Performance: Impact on Contract”, there are two more elements which must be addressed before one can determine what the contract is in reality, or if in fact there is a ‘legal obligation between the parties’.  These elements include the application of relevant UCC provisions to the agreement between the parties, and the application of supplemental general principles of law which are also applicable to the agreement.  It is only upon the application of these criteria to the parties’ agreement, that the ‘legal obligation’ among the parties can be determined.

The laws which apply to a sales contract under the Uniform Commercial Code are those laws contained in Article 2, Sales, and the laws contained in Article 1, General Provisions.  It is extremely important to remember at all times that Article 1 applies to the whole Uniform Commercial Code per section 1-102; hence, regardless of the substantive article which applies to a given transaction, it will always be supplemented by the provisions of Article 1.  This is often overlooked, and in such a situation, a huge body of law, with enormous implications is not activated.

As we have already seen, the definition of ‘contract’ is found in Article 1 as are the terms comprising the definition of agreement.  Further, the application of these concepts as envisioned by Sections 1-201(b)(3) and 1-303, can have an enormous impact on the ultimate meaning of the parties agreement, and hence, their contract. Article 1 will be discussed in detail in upcoming Blogs.

Once the parties ‘agreement’ is determined, I believe that most logical next step is to determine whether or not the ‘agreement’ is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.  While the totality of Article 1 applies to the ‘agreement’, it is irrelevant if the agreement itself has no legal import due to the Statute of Frauds.  The basic rule of Section 2-201(1), and the reply doctrine of Section 2-201(2), were discussed in Blog # 3 – “Monopoly and the UCC”.  If there is a written contract signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, or the requisite confirmatory memoranda under Section 2-201(2), the contract is enforceable.  If however, neither of these criteria is met, there are still three possible exceptions to the writing requirement of Section 2-201(1).

Two of these exceptions are quite easy.  Under Section 2-201(3)(b), the contract is enforceable “if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made”  Obviously, in such a situation, the contract has been admitted, and hence should be enforced.  Another situation which is very straightforward is the exception to the basic Statute of Frauds rule “with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted”.  Payment for goods or acceptance of goods is an unmistakable statement that the contract exists.

The final exception is stated under Section 2-201(3)(a) which states as follows:

A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable

(a) if the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable to sell to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement.

There are thus four questions which must be answered in order to determine if Section 2-201(3)(a) applies in a given case:

(a)    Are the goods to be specifically manufactured for the alleged buyer?

(b)    Are the goods in question suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business?

(c)   Did the seller make the “substantial beginning” of the manufacture of the goods in question or “commitments for their [its] procurement”?

(d)   Was the foregoing done before notice of repudiation was received, and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer?

In order for the contract to be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds per Section 2-201(3)(a), the questions must be answered as follows:

(a)   yes; (b) no; (c) yes; (d) yes.

The policy behind Section 2-201(3)(a) is predicated upon the commercial reality that a seller is unlikely to undertake the manufacture of a product which cannot be sold in the seller’s ordinary course of business for no reason.  Such a move, involving time and expense is unlikely to be undertaken if there wasn’t a basis, provided by the buyer, for the seller’s going forward.  It should be noted however, that even if the criteria of Section 2-201(3)(a) are satisfied, the seller will still have to prove his or her case, for the satisfaction of those criteria merely eliminates the barrier of the Statute of Frauds.  It does not result in a conclusive presumption that the seller is entitled to judgment.

www.ucc-madeeasy.com