Sec. 201. (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 section
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 sufficiently 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 ten (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 his
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 (IC 26-1-2-606).
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-201. As amended by
P.L.152-1986, SEC.125; P.L.199-2023, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
Zemco Mfg., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 186 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 5× “One view is that all contract modifications must be in writing; another view is that only modifications of terms that are required to be in writing under UCC § 2-201 must be in writing.”
Owen v. Kroger Co., 936 F. Supp. 579 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
· cites it 11× “Kroger moves for partial summary judgment with regard to the alleged contracts for the 1992 and 1993 seasons, arguing that even if contracts did exist between plaintiff and Kroger for certain minimum purchases of irises in 1992 and 1993, those contracts are unenforceable as a…”
Woodmar Coin Ctr., Inc. v. Owen, 447 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code 26-1-2-201 provides in part: (1) 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…”
Indiana Farm Bureau Coop. Ass'n v. Ennis, 574 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “§ 26-1-2-201 comment (West 1980). LC. § 26-1-2-204 provides that a contract may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such contract.”
Wehry v. Daniels, 784 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 26-1-2-201 provides in pertinent part as follows: *535 (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 some…”
FILLMORE LLC v. Fillmore Mach. & Tool Co., 783 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “The Statute of Frauds Next, Fillmore LLC and Innotek contend that the trial court erred in determining that our statute of frauds, Indiana Code section 26-1-2-201(1), would pre *1178 clude any agreement regarding the transfer of the equipment to Fillmore LLC.”
E & L Rental Equip., Inc. v. Wade Constr. Inc., 752 N.E.2d 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“Cope § 26-1-2-201(1). Here, the value of goods that E & L provided to Wade Construction was in ex *660 cess of $500 and their agreement was not reduced to writing.”
Craig & Landreth, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ind. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Defendant argues that the lack of a writing makes any alleged contract void, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code’s statute of frauds, I.C. § 26-1-2-201(1). Furthermore, they argue that Plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding the creation of…”
MNW, LLC v. Mega Auto Grp., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D. Ind. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 26-1-2-201. Moreover, a sale occurs when title to the goods passes from seller to buyer.”
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-201(1): 7 cases
Owen v. Kroger Co., 936 F. Supp. 579 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
“Kroger moves for partial summary judgment with regard to the alleged contracts for the 1992 and 1993 seasons, arguing that even if contracts did exist between plaintiff and Kroger for certain minimum purchases of irises in 1992 and 1993, those contracts are unenforceable as a…”
FILLMORE LLC v. Fillmore Mach. & Tool Co., 783 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“The Statute of Frauds Next, Fillmore LLC and Innotek contend that the trial court erred in determining that our statute of frauds, Indiana Code section 26-1-2-201(1), would pre *1178 clude any agreement regarding the transfer of the equipment to Fillmore LLC.”
E & L Rental Equip., Inc. v. Wade Constr. Inc., 752 N.E.2d 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“Cope § 26-1-2-201(1). Here, the value of goods that E & L provided to Wade Construction was in ex *660 cess of $500 and their agreement was not reduced to writing.”
Craig & Landreth, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ind. 2010).
“Defendant argues that the lack of a writing makes any alleged contract void, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code’s statute of frauds, I.C. § 26-1-2-201(1). Furthermore, they argue that Plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding the creation of…”
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-201(2): 2 cases
Indiana Farm Bureau Coop. Ass'n v. Ennis, 574 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
“§ 26-1-2-201 comment (West 1980). LC. § 26-1-2-204 provides that a contract may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such contract.”
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-201(3)(b): 1 case
Woodmar Coin Ctr., Inc. v. Owen, 447 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
“Ind.Code 26-1-2-201 provides in part: (1) 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…”
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.