Opinion ID: 1636082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commercial Unit

Text: Defendants maintain that the trial court erred in not permitting the question of whether a bin of beans is a commercial unit to go to the jury. At the conference preliminary to trial, defendants offered to prove that within the relevant market area farmers and grain-elevator operators frequently bought and sold beans by the bin. From that offer of proof, defendants contend (1) that a jury issue arose as to whether a bin of beans is a commercial unit within the meaning of Minn.St. 336.2-105(6), [13] and (2) that acceptance of any part of the bin by the buyer constitutes acceptance of the entire bin within the meaning of Minn.St. 336.2-606(2). [14] The question then arises whether defendants' position that the oral contract is taken out of the statute of frauds by Minn.St. 336.2-201(3)(c) [15] is tenable. We need not reach that issue since under our reading of Minn.St. 336.2-201(3)(c) it is necessary that the goods have been received and accepted before avoidance of the statute of frauds is recognized. See, Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. Leonard, 156 Conn. 75, 239 A.2d 500 (1968). The evidence is conclusive that defendants actually received only 4,020 bushels of beans. As the part-performance exception to the statute of frauds requires that one have received all of the goods for which recovery is sought, defendants could not prevail even if they could prove that by accepting a part of the bin of beans, they accepted the whole.