Opinion ID: 1692813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the letter a sufficient memorandum in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds?

Text: In Derden v. Morris, 247 So.2d 838 (Miss. 1971), this Court held that there are three requirements as to the memorandum necessary to take a case outside the statute of frauds provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code: (1) The memorandum must evidence a contract for the sale of goods; (2) it must be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, and (3) it must specify a quantity. Walker's letter provides for the sale of goods (expanded and 21 oz. plastic) and states a quantity (all of the plastic for your plant's use). The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes output or requirement contracts in Mississippi Code Annotated section 75-2-306(1) (1972) as follows: A term which measures the quantity by the output of the seller or the requirements of the buyer means such actual output or requirements as may occur in good faith, except that no quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or in the absence of a stated estimate to any normal or otherwise comparable prior output or requirements may be tendered or demanded. The letter is signed by Walker, who was elected president of Mid-South upon its organization, and as already found, this contract was adopted by Mid-South. We hold that the letter satisfies the statute of frauds and was binding upon Mid-South. All factual issues were resolved against Mid-South by the jury, whose verdict was justified by the evidence. We hold the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and judgment is entered here reversing that judgment, reinstating the jury verdict, and judgment entered here in favor of Fortune for $6,066.16, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) from May 4, 1973. Reversed and rendered. RODGERS, P.J., and PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.