Court Opinion

ID: 9552915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:19:13.119774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:21.366441
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring specially) — I agree with the majority that, in order to preserve the integrity of the Uniform Commercial Code, the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals must be answered in the negative. It is evident that the legislature gave careful thought to the circumstances which would justify exceptions to the requirement of a written contract, and those exceptions are set forth in the act itself. They do not include circumstances which in other areas of law might invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
While the code makes no provision for relief under the theory of promissory estoppel, it does provide an exception to the requirement of a writing
*301if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted; . . .
RCW 62A.2-201 (3) (b).
There is in the District Court's findings some suggestion that there may have been such an admission here. If that were the case, the code itself would provide a remedy.
Hicks, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.