Harry Kaufman v. George Solomon and George Teslovich, Individually and Trading as Solomon& Teslovich
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal has its basis in an alleged oral contract for the sale of an item of construction equipment, a 475 Michigan Loader, Series III, 12 cubic yard, at a price of $60,000.00. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of frauds provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-201, barred the action. We conclude that the existence of a factual issue as to the payment-and-acceptance exception of the statute requires that the judgment be vacated and the case remanded.
The facts, gleaned from the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Fournier v. BurbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1959
- Presti v. WilsonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- Coffman v. FlemingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Technical Economist Corp. v. MoorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sun Refining and Marketing Company, Formerly Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania v. Pat J. RagoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Andersen v. KossAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
- Miller v. WootersAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985
- Buffaloe v. HartCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994