Opinion ID: 2354905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of Contract; delivery date of the essence

Text: Callier concedes that a contract of purchase and sale existed between the parties from the opening oral negotiations, but contends that the delivery date of January 3, 1978, never became of the essence of their contract, arguing that such delivery dates are meant to be only approximate and allow flexibility of performance within a reasonable time thereafter. The justice below concluded from the facts of this case that time, meaning January 3, 1978, was of the essence of the contract between Cives and Callier. In this, there was no error. In the first place, the Superior Court justice would have been fully justified in concluding that it would be contrary to normal business practices for Cives to contract with Callier for components of a major construction job and then leave Callier free to perform by any date of its choosing, even on the basis of within a reasonable time standard. This factual finding of the Superior Court must be upheld on appellate review unless clearly erroneous. M.R.Civ.P. 52(a). See Dehahn v. Innes, 356 A.2d 711, 716-17 (Me.1976) (review of action for breach of parol agreement respecting sale of goods and real estate). A finding is not clearly erroneous if there exists any competent evidence in the record to support it. See Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 981 (Me.1981). None of the facts to which Callier points supports its contention that the trial justice clearly erred in finding an agreement to deliver by January 3, 1978. First, Callier notes that it never returned Cives' purchase order. This fact only relates to whether Callier ever accepted Cives' offer. Because Callier admits the existence of a contract, the trial justice was not clearly wrong in concluding that Callier was chargeable with knowledge of the date by which delivery was due. Callier also did not object to the delivery date contained in Cives' purchase order, even though the document expressly declared time to be of the essence. The court below could give legal effect to that term of the contract, if [b]etween merchants if within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of [the statute of frauds] against such party unless written notice of objection to its contents is given within 10 days after it is received. 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(2) (1964). Callier argues that Cives cannot avail itself of this provision because Cives is not a merchant. In arguing that Cives is not in precisely the same line of manufacturing as Callier, Callier places far too narrow a construction on the term merchants. Cives Corporation, a steel plate manufacturer involved in a substantial construction contract, is certainly chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants. 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104(3) (1964). Callier's interpretation of § 2-201(2) would limit it to the rare case where buyer and seller were identically situated companies. A company rarely contracts to buy a product similar to one the company itself manufactures. In Frantz, Inc. v. Blue Grass Hams, Inc., 520 S.W.2d 313, 315 (Ky.1975), the court found that a firm which held itself out as expert in mechanical contracting, which contractually agreed to provide a cooling system, was a merchant with respect to the goods furnished under the agreement, even though the firm subcontracted for the supply of the cooling equipment. Similarly, Cives has held itself out to Georgia-Pacific as a merchant in the field of steel supplier and/or manufacturer, and Callier dealt with Cives as such. The purpose of § 2-201(2) is to impose greater restrictions on merchants than on consumers. Both Cives and Callier are in the field of manufacturing steel products, whether it be of the plate or tubular variety. When dealing together, the statute terms their transaction one between merchants, i.e. with respect to a subject matter to which both parties are chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants. 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104(3) (1964). See Uniform Commercial Code § 2-104 comment 1, reprinted in 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104 (1964). Callier further contends that by subcontracting with Lanan for delivery by January 5, 1978, Callier showed its lack of agreement to any January 3, 1978, delivery date. The trial court could justifiably find that this date was the best deal Callier could get from Lanan; it need not have been viewed as a repudiation of the delivery term of the Cives contract. Callier failed to give any notice to Cives that it objected to the delivery date of January 3, 1978, let alone the 10 days written notice of objection provided by 11 M.R. S.A. § 2-201(2); not having protected itself through the use of this statutory escape provision, Callier cannot now complain about the court's finding that time was of the essence of the contract and that the defendant was guilty of a breach thereof.