Opinion ID: 1300886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: oral agreement and statute of frauds

Text: You are instructed that the Statute of Frauds of this state provides: ... a contract for the sale of goods for the price of Five Hundred Dollars or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.... ... a contract for the sale of personal property is not enforceable by way of action or defense beyond Five Thousand Dollars ... unless there is some writing which indicates that a contract for sale has been made between the parties at a defined or stated price, reasonably identifies the subject matter, and is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.... This instruction was taken verbatim from the Uniform Commercial Code statute of frauds for personal property and goods, Neb.U.C.C. §§ 1-206 and 2-201 (Reissue 1980). The agreement between the appellant and the appellees did not involve personal property or goods. The plain language of these statutes and the definitional statute makes clear that these statutes do not apply to agreements for the performance of a service. Neb.U.C.C. § 2-105 (Reissue 1980). Our cases have held that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on the proper law of the case, and failure to do so constitutes prejudicial error. State v. Clayburn, 223 Neb. 333, 389 N.W.2d 314 (1986); State v. Lamb, 213 Neb. 498, 330 N.W.2d 462 (1983); State v. Duis, 207 Neb. 851, 301 N.W.2d 587 (1981). The district court did not instruct the jury on the law of the case and, therefore, committed prejudicial error. In view of this disposition, the remaining assignments will not be discussed. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.