Court Opinion

ID: 9858317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:20:16.576036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:55.328377
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result because I agree Poeckes, as a matter of law, established in this summary judgment proceeding that he was not a merchant under the definition in § 554.2104, The Code. I also agree the issue is ordinarily a question of fact. Further, despite the import of broad language in cases from other jurisdictions quoted in the majority opinion, nothing in the Code definition precludes a finding that a farmer who sells only products he raises is a merchant. A farmer who regularly sells only his own products certainly may in some circumstances be “a person who deals in goods of the kind” or one who “holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction * * See § 554.2104, The Code. The legislature intended the statute of frauds to be used as a shield by those who need its protection rather than as a sword by those who do not.
MASON and RAWLINGS, JJ., join this special concurrence.