Cox Caulking & Insulating Co. v. Brockett Distributing Co.
Citation | 150 Ga.App. 424,258 S.E.2d 51 |
Decision Date | 22 June 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 57202,57202 |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Parties | , 27 UCC Rep.Serv. 355 COX CAULKING & INSULATING COMPANY v. BROCKETT DISTRIBUTING COMPANY. |
Somers & Altenbach, John W. Gibson, Atlanta, Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Ed Hine, Jr., Rome, for appellant.
Zachary & Segraves, J. Ed Segraves, Decatur, for appellee.
We find meritless appellant's contention that the statute of frauds was not a bar to his claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of appellee's motion for summary judgment.
Appellant, Cox Caulking and Insulating Company, brought this suit seeking damages for appellee Brockett Distributing Company's alleged breach of an oral contract for the sale of insulating material to appellant, the latter being the insulation subcontractor on a construction project headed by Cardinal-Hunt Joint Ventures. Appellee's increase in the price it charged for the material constituted the basis for appellant's allegation of breach. In the trial court appellant maintained that a letter written by appellee to Cardinal-Hunt, pertinent portions of which we quote, satisfied the applicable statute of frauds:
1. The only argument appellant presents concerning the Statute of Frauds is that the quoted letter fulfilled Code § 109A-2-201(1), which provides: Official Comment 1 to that section of the Uniform Commercial Code states:
Assuming arguendo that the letter satisfied the first two requirements of the subsection, as a matter of law it did not satisfy the requirement that a quantity of insulation be stated. We agree with appellant that the quantity need not be designated numerically where the memorandum evidences a requirements or output contract. R. L. Kimsey Cotton Co. v. Ferguson, 233 Ga. 962(1), 214 S.E.2d 360 (1975). However, we reject appellant's contention that the phrase, "for the above project," was sufficient as a term of quantity. We conclude, instead, that that phrase merely designated the project which was the subject of the letter and that the letter contained no such "term which measure(d) the quantity by the output of the seller or the requirements of the buyer." Code § 109A-2-306(1). (See Code § 109A-1-201(42) for...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Maddox v. Queen
-
Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.
...Inc. (E.D.Pa.1974) 377 F.Supp. 387 [not a "requirement" or "output" contract]; Cox Caulking, etc. v. Brockett Distributing Co. (1979) 150 Ga.App. 424, 258 S.E.2d 51, 52 [same]; Ace Concrete Prod. v. Chas. J. Rogers Const. (1976) 69 Mich.App. 610, 245 N.W.2d 353, 354 [the space for the quant......
-
Cavalier Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Liberty Homes, Inc.
...which indicates that the quantity to be delivered under the contract is a party's requirements. Cox Caulking & Insulating Co. v. Brockett Distributing Co., 150 Ga.App. 424, 258 S.E.2d 51 (1979); 3 U.C.C. § 2.04 & n. 27.2 [Bender] (citing The invoices in evidence indicate a course of dealing......
-
Eastern Dental Corp. v. Isaac Masel Co., Inc.
...that the quantity to be delivered under the contract is a party's requirements or output. See Cox Caulking & Insulating Co. v. Brockett Distributing Co., 258 S.E.2d 51 (Ga.App. 1979); 3 U.C.C. § 2.04 & n.27.2 Bender (citing EDC asserts that the termination letter dated August 10, 1978, the ......