Court Opinion

ID: 9856282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:43:48.444223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:32.417571
License: Public Domain

BROTHERTON, Justice
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the majority’s characterization of an oral contract for the delivery of oil as three separate sales. The majority’s conclusion comports with neither the form nor the substance of the underlying transaction. The majority acknowledged that the substance of the arrangement between Union and Anderson was a contract for delivery. With regard to form, there was no agreement between Union and Anderson “which by its own terms [called] for the vesting of ownership or title to the property in the transferee.” The case does not, therefore, come within the rule of West Virginia Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Hardesty, 167 W.Va. 511, 280 S.E.2d 270 (1981).
Anderson and Union had a written jobber sales contract, but no written agreement governing the deliveries in issue in this case. The majority's rule penalizes Anderson based on bookkeeping entries alone — the debits and offsetting credits recorded upon pick-up and delivery of oil ordered by the State. This goes beyond exaltation of form over substance, to creation of fictional sales never intended by the parties.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.