(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) of this section 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) of this section 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;
(b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in that party's pleading or 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 (KRS 355.2-606). Effective: January 1, 2025 History: Amended 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 10, sec. 7, effective January 1, 2025. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-201, effective July 1, 1960.
Notes of Decisions
Lonnie Hayes & Sons Staves, Inc. v. Bourbon Cooperage Co., 777 S.W.2d 940 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 10× “Therefore, the trial court ruled that Hayes’ counterclaim was barred by the Statute of Frauds contained in KRS 355.2-201. The trial court stated that Hayes had not specifically pled as a defense to Bourbon’s complaint that the circumstances alleged in the counterclaim and…”
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003).
· cites it 2× “KRS § 355.2-201(1). As noted by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the statute requires a signed writing “to provide evidence of a contract.”
Gen. Steel Corp. v. Collins, 196 S.W.3d 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “General Steel’s argument depends upon a fundamental misconception of the purpose and effect of KRS 355.2-201. A majority of jurisdictions holds that the conflicting terms between an offer pursuant to KRS 355.”
Meade v. Richardson Fuel, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 55 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“Meade first contends that the trial court erred by applying the statute of frauds, KRS 355.2-201, to her claim. A thorough reading of the trial court’s conclusions of law, however, discloses that the trial court correctly concluded that the transaction between Meade and Thacker…”
Home Lumber Co. v. Appalachian Reg'l Hospitals, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 912 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“In addition, KRS 355.2-201(2) provides that between merchants, if within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of an oral contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the receiving party has reason to know of the contents, unless such party objects within ten…”
S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S., 265 S.W.3d 804 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“1979)(applying KRS 355.2-201). T’s estoppel argument is necessarily dependent upon enforcement of the parties’ “Adoption Agreement.”
Renfroe v. Ladd, 701 S.W.2d 148 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
“2d 40 (1979) in dealing with an equitable estoppel argument concerning KRS 355.2-201, our statute of frauds relating to the sale of goods for $500.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-201(1) — 7 cases
Lonnie Hayes & Sons Staves, Inc. v. Bourbon Cooperage Co., 777 S.W.2d 940 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
“Therefore, the trial court ruled that Hayes’ counterclaim was barred by the Statute of Frauds contained in KRS 355.2-201. The trial court stated that Hayes had not specifically pled as a defense to Bourbon’s complaint that the circumstances alleged in the counterclaim and…”
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003).
“KRS § 355.2-201(1). As noted by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the statute requires a signed writing “to provide evidence of a contract.”
Gen. Steel Corp. v. Collins, 196 S.W.3d 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
“General Steel’s argument depends upon a fundamental misconception of the purpose and effect of KRS 355.2-201. A majority of jurisdictions holds that the conflicting terms between an offer pursuant to KRS 355.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-201(2) — 2 cases
Home Lumber Co. v. Appalachian Reg'l Hospitals, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 912 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“In addition, KRS 355.2-201(2) provides that between merchants, if within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of an oral contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the receiving party has reason to know of the contents, unless such party objects within ten…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-201(3) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-201(3)(e) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-201(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-201(c)(3) — 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.