GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentLeeson, J.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the documents allegedly sent by plaintiffs to L-P were sufficient to satisfy the UCC Statute of Frauds. The majority’s opinion is at odds with courts from other jurisdictions that have ruled on facts similar to those in this case. Regrettably, it creates an “Oregon exception” to the uniformity that is one of the underlying purposes of the UCC. See ORS 71.1020(2)(c).
According to the majority, the forms sent by plaintiffs to L-P are writings in confirmation of a contract because they are labeled “ORDER CONFIRMATION” and because neither “the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Adams v. Petrade International, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1988
- Bazak International Corp. v. Mast Industries, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of MississippiDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1978
- Howard Construction Co. v. Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Kline Iron & Steel Co. v. Gray Communications Consultants, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.