(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500) or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is a record 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 the party’s authorized agent or broker. A record is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon, but the contract is not enforceable under this subsection beyond the quantity of goods shown in the record.
(2) Between merchants if within a reasonable time a record in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of subsection (1) against the party unless notice in a record of objection to its contents is given within 10 days after it is received.
(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable:
(a) If the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement; or
(b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in the party’s pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted; or
(c) With respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted (Section 7-2-606).
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811; Act 2023-492, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Johnny Ray Sports, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank, 982 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 3× “had argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on that counterclaim for three reasons: (1) there is, it argued, overwhelming evidence that the alleged oral contract the Johnny Ray companies' breach-of-contract counterclaim is based on does not exist; (2) the…”
Quality Truck & Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine, 730 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 7-2-201(1), provides: "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…”
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Barton Willoughby, D/B/A Willoughby Farms, 863 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
“He ruled that because the Alabama statute of frauds, Ala.Code § 7-2-201, was merely procedural, it precluded enforcement of an oral contract as a remedy, but did not prevent the Secretary from “look[ing] at the facts standing behind an oral modification to a written contract to…”
Bradley v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 2003 MT 82 (Mont. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The District Court need not consider Montana's Statute of Frauds when determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction; nor does it need to invoke its "equitable powers" to find jurisdiction. ¶ 21 Nor is the Tribe correct when it contends that because a signed copy of the…”
Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Tellis, 192 So. 3d 386 (Ala. 2015).
· cites it 2× “[The defendant insurance company’s] insurance policy is not subject to either of Alabama’s Statutes of Frauds, see Ala.Code §§ 7-2-201 and 8-9-2, nor is it made contingent upon the condition precedent that it be signed by [the plaintiff].”
S. United Fire Ins. Co. v. Howard, 775 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 2× “[5] Southern's insurance policy is not subject to either of Alabama's Statutes of Frauds, see Ala. Code §§ 7-2-201 and 8-9-2, nor is it made contingent upon the condition precedent that it be signed by Howard.”
Brenda Darlene, Inc. v. Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., 101 So. 3d 1242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
· cites it 20× “In its motion, BSF argued that the shrimp-boat companies had based their claims on an oral contract that was void under Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-201, the Statute of Frauds contained in the Uniform Commercial Code; that it had not fraudulently misrepresented or suppressed any…”
Perdue ex rel. Perdue v. Green, 127 So. 3d 343 (Ala. 2012).
“, §§ 7-2-201 and 7-2A-201, Ala.Code 1975 (making certain contracts “not enforceable” under Statute of Frauds); § 8-1 — 1(a), Ala.”
Yarbrough v. Williams, 533 So. 2d 565 (Ala. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The agreement involved the sale of specially manufactured goods worth over $5,000, Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-201(1) and (3)(a), which Yarbrough accepted, § 7-2-606.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(1) — 12 cases
Johnny Ray Sports, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank, 982 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 2007).
“had argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on that counterclaim for three reasons: (1) there is, it argued, overwhelming evidence that the alleged oral contract the Johnny Ray companies' breach-of-contract counterclaim is based on does not exist; (2) the…”
Quality Truck & Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine, 730 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1999).
“Code 1975, § 7-2-201(1), provides: "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…”
Yarbrough v. Williams, 533 So. 2d 565 (Ala. 1988).
“The agreement involved the sale of specially manufactured goods worth over $5,000, Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-201(1) and (3)(a), which Yarbrough accepted, § 7-2-606.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(2) — 3 cases
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(3)(B) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(3)(b) — 2 cases
Brenda Darlene, Inc. v. Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., 101 So. 3d 1242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
“In its motion, BSF argued that the shrimp-boat companies had based their claims on an oral contract that was void under Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-201, the Statute of Frauds contained in the Uniform Commercial Code; that it had not fraudulently misrepresented or suppressed any…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(3)(c) — 2 cases
Brenda Darlene, Inc. v. Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., 101 So. 3d 1242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
“In its motion, BSF argued that the shrimp-boat companies had based their claims on an oral contract that was void under Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-201, the Statute of Frauds contained in the Uniform Commercial Code; that it had not fraudulently misrepresented or suppressed any…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(S)(c) — 1 case
Brenda Darlene, Inc. v. Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., 101 So. 3d 1242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
“In its motion, BSF argued that the shrimp-boat companies had based their claims on an oral contract that was void under Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-201, the Statute of Frauds contained in the Uniform Commercial Code; that it had not fraudulently misrepresented or suppressed any…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-201(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.