McCaw v. McCaw

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that, even where writings surmount statute of frauds defense, plaintiff still has burden of proving all elements of underlying claim
• “UCC 2-201(1) requires that the writing be ‘sufficient to indicate a contract while UCC 2-201(2) calls for a writing in confirmation of a contract.
• “If the writings can be construed as confirming an alleged oral agreement, they are sufficient under UCC 2-201(1) against Bazak — the sender — since Bazak signed them.”
• if a writing indicates an actual transaction between the parties, the statute of frauds is satisfied and plaintiff may proceed to trial on the issue of whether the parties actually entered into the alleged contract
• “We conclude the annotated purchase order forms signed by the buyer, sent to the seller and retained without objection, fall within the merchant’s exception, satisfying the statutory requirement of a writing even without the buyer’s signature.”
• “UCC 2-201(2) neither binds the receiving merchant to an agreement it has not made nor delivers an undeserved triumph to the sending merchant. It does no more than permit the sender to proceed with an attempt to prove its allegations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).