“under [the UCC] a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct that indicates the existence of such a contract”
How later courts described this case
- “under [the UCC] a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct that indicates the existence of such a contract”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge WELLS
concurring.
In the breach of contract context, the dispositive issue in this case is whether plaintiff should have been allowed to rely on the oral representations of defendant’s employees pertaining to an all-requirements, life-of-the-part commitment, or, whether plaintiff was limited to the written terms of defendant’s purchase orders. I am of the opinion that under the provisions of our Uniform Commercial Code, G.S. 25-2-202, plaintiff was not confined to the written terms of the purchase orders.
As to the Unfair Trade Practices claim, if there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that defendant represented to plaintiff that it would give plaintiff all of its footpad business for the Craftsman mower, but never intended to abide by that promise, then this issue was correctly resolved in plaintiff’s favor. Although the evidence on this point was only circumstantial, it appears to me that the dealings between these parties over the course of their relationship would allow that inference.