Payne v. Far-Mar-Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | FAR-MAR-CO,No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 612 S.W.2d 54 |
| Parties | 30 UCC Rep.Serv. 1293 Godfrey PAYNE and Albert Richardson, Appellants, v., Respondent. 31299. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
R. A. Brown, St. Joseph, for respondent.
Before PRITCHARD, P. J., and SWOFFORD and TURNAGE, JJ.
The issue is what statute of limitations is applicable to a written contract for the sale of approximately 4,009 bushels of soybeans. The trial court sustained respondent's motion to dismiss upon the therein pleaded ground that § 400.2-725, RSMo 1969, barred appellants' action.
Appellants pleaded that on or about August 8, 1972, they entered into the written grain purchase contract with respondent, whereby they agreed to furnish and deliver the soybeans between January 1 and the month of March, 1973, and that they did deliver the grain within the time limits specified, but respondent "deliberately and willfully fails and refuses to pay the same." The prayer was for $13,029.51, and interest from April 1, 1973, and for costs. The petition was filed April 6, 1979.
§ 400.2-725, enacted L.1963, p. 547, § 2.725, provides * * * "
Appellants contend that the ten year statute, § 516.110, applies, arguing, "If a writing is susceptible to construction on its face that it contains a promise to pay money to a party, the Ten Year Statute of Limitations applies, even though the precise sum may be contingent and must be shown by an extrinsic evidence after the promise has been made." § 516.110 is: "Within ten years: (1) An action upon any writing, whether sealed or unsealed, for the payment of money or property; * * *." It was last revised, R.S.1939, § 1013.
What the Legislature has here done is to carve out of § 516.110 a special statute of limitations relating to a contract for the sale of goods from the former general limitation of ten years within which actions must be brought on writings for the payment of money or property. The newer statute, § 400.2-725, specifically relates to actions brought upon any contract for sale, and the purposes of the enactment are stated in the comment thereafter following (also in 1A ULA,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor
...Burton v. Artery Co., 279 Md. 94, 367 A.2d 935 (1977); Hughes v. Collegedale Distributors, 355 So.2d 79 (Miss.1978); Payne v. Far-Mar-Co., 612 S.W.2d 54 (Mo.App.1981); Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc.2d 78, 341 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1973); May Co. v. Trusnik, 54 Ohio App.2d 71, 375 N.E.2......
-
Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co.
...period for a specific type of action, this limitation controls over an older, more general statute of limitations. Payne v. Far-Mar-Co., Mo., 612 S.W.2d 54 (1981); Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc.2d 78, 341 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1973). That rule establishes § 70A-2-725 as the applicable ......
-
Witherspoon v. General Motors Corp.
...F.Supp. 1183 (E.D.Mo. 1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 276 (8th Cir. 1972) (welding equipment failed to perform as specified). Payne v. Far-Mar-Co., 612 S.W.2d 54 (Mo.App.1981), the first state court opinion on the subject, involved nonpayment of money due under a written contract for sale of soybean......