Jinright v. Russell, 45826

• Decision Date: 28 April 1971
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 45826,45826,3
• Citation: 123 Ga.App. 706,182 S.E.2d 328
• Parties: , 9 UCC Rep.Serv. 455 Hurshell JINRIGHT et al. v. Maria Y. RUSSELL
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 328

182 S.E.2d 328

123 Ga.App. 706, 9 UCC Rep.Serv. 455

Hurshell JINRIGHT et al. v. Maria Y. RUSSELL.

No. 45826.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

April 28, 1971.

Owens, Littlejohn & Gower, F. Houser Pugh, Columbus, for appellants.

Roberts, Elkins & Kilpatrick, Paul V. Kilpatrick, Jr., Samuel W. Worthington, III, Columbus, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

WHITMAN, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendants below from the denial of their motion for a summary judgment. The complaint alleges that the parties made an oral agreement whereby the defendants agreed: '(T)o purchase from the plaintiff all fixtures, stock, good will and name or trade name located in the establishment known as the Bottle Shop Liquor Store * * * for the sum of $6,500. Said money being payable $1,500 down and the balance payable as soon as the license was transferred.'

It is further alleged that the defendants gave the plaintiff a check in the amount of $1,500 as partial payment of the contract price, but then stopped payment on the check. The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint and set up several matters in defense.

1. One ground of the defendants' motion for summary judgment which is urged on appeal is that: '(T)he alleged agreement sued upon is oral and is void and unenforceable in that it is for the sale of goods at a price of more than $500.00 and that no memorandum in writing was executed pursuant to the Statute of Frauds and there has not been sufficient part performance so as to remove said alleged agreement from the application of the Statute of Frauds.'

Both defendants filed an affidavit in support of their motion. The affidavits admit that there were negotiations between the parties regarding the sale of the store. It is deposed that they were quoted a price of $5,500, and further that they did give plaintiff a check for $1,500, but when the plaintiff mentioned a balance remaining different from what they had understood, 'rather than get into a hassle * * * over the purchase price, we stopped payment on the check and discontinued negotiations the same day it (the check) was given.'

The check was before the lower court for consideration. It is for the amount of $1,500 payable to the plaintiff, and is drawn on Mrs. Hurshell Jinright's account with the Fourth National Bank of Columbus, Columbus, Georgia, and is signed 'Mrs. Hurshell Jinright.' The check bears the notation 'For Binder on Store.' It is endorsed by the plaintiff. On its face the check is stamped 'Payment Stopped.'

The applicable statute is Ga.L.1962, pp. 156, 176 (Code Ann. § 109A-2-201), which provides:

'Formal requirements; statute of frauds.-Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.'

The Comment to Section 2-201(1) of the 1962 Official Text of the UCC (from which Code Ann. § 109A-2-201(1) is taken) states: 'The required writing need not contain all the material terms of the contract and such material terms as are stated need not be precisely stated. All that is required is that the writing afford a basis for believing that the offered oral evidence rests on a real transaction. It may be written in lead pencil on a scratch pad. It need not indicate which party is the buyer and which the seller. The only term which must appear is the quantity term which need not be accurately stated but recovery is limited to the amount stated. The price, time and place of payment or delivery, the general quality of the goods, or any particular warranties may all be omitted. * * *

'Only three definite and invariable requirements as to the memorandum are made by this subsection. First, it must evidence a contract for the sale of goods; second, it must be 'signed', a word which includes any authentication which identifies the party to be charged; and third, it must specify a quantity.'

In Kramer v. Johnson, 121 Ga.App. 848, 850, 176 S.E.2d 108, the court said: 'The legislature had the benefit of the drafter's interpretations when it enacted the Code (Uniform Commercial Code) and we cannot say that it intended something else.' See also Warren's Kiddie Shoppe, Inc. v. Casual Slacks, Inc., 120 Ga.App. 578, 580, 171 S.E.2d 643.

In our view the signed check in the present case, with its notation 'For Binder on Store,' meets all of the requirements of a writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale was made between the parties. The check does not prove a contract, but it would authorize the introduction of oral evidence toward that end. The party asserting the contract still must bear the burden of proving its existence and the terms. Cf. Arcuri v. Weiss, 198 Pa.Super. 506, 184 A.2d 24.

2. Another argument which the defendant-appellants make is that even if there was an agreement such as has been alleged, in particular, 'said money being payable $1,500 down and the balance payable as soon as the license was transferred,' then it is manifest that the performance under the contract was contingent upon the...