Rupari argued that there was nothing in writing as required


Question: Statute of Frauds. Quality Pork International is a Nebraska firm that makes and sells custom pork products. Rupari Food Services, Inc., buys food products and sells them to retail operations and food brokers. In November 1999, Midwest Brokerage arranged an oral contract between Quality and Rupari, under which Quality would ship three orders to Star Food Processing, Inc., and Rupari would pay for the products. Quality shipped the goods to Star and sent invoices to Rupari. In turn, Rupari billed Star for all three orders but paid Quality only for the first two (for $43,736.84 and $47,467.80, respectively), not for the third. Quality filed a suit in a Nebraska state court against Rupari, alleging breach of contract, to recover $44,051.98, the cost of the third order. Rupari argued that there was nothing in writing, as required by Section 2-201of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and thus there was no contract. What are the exceptions to the UCC's writing requirement? Do any of those exceptions apply here? Explain. [Quality Pork International v. Rupari Food Services, Inc., 267 Neb. 474, 675 N.W.2d 642 (2004)]

Solution Preview :

Prepared by a verified Expert
Business Law and Ethics: Rupari argued that there was nothing in writing as required
Reference No:- TGS02454867

Now Priced at $15 (50% Discount)

Recommended (95%)

Rated (4.7/5)