Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 361
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 361.040 (2026)

Repealed, 1960

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Statute of frauds. History: Repealed 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, Art. 10, sec. 10-102, effective July 1, 1960. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2651b-4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1943–1952 · leading case: Utils. Elec. Mach. Corp. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 187 S.W.2d 1015 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Utils. Elec. Mach. Corp. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 187 S.W.2d 1015 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). · cites it 2× “If it be conceived that there be a contract, if made in Kentucky, Section 361.040, KRS, applies; if made in Ohio, Section 8384, Throckmorton’s Ohio Code, Ed.”
Finn v. Finn's Adm'r, 244 S.W.2d 435 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “That section makes unenforceable a contract to sell or a sale of “any goods or choses in action of the value of five hundred dollars or upwards” unless certain things shall have been done.”
Threlkeld's Ex'rs v. Synodical Presbyterian Orphanage, 210 S.W.2d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). “It is conceded that these orders-were verbal, and in view of KRS 361.040 that the contracts were unenforceable.”
Minary v. Hammond, 170 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “As this suit was based upon an oral contract for materials in excess of $500 sold and delivered, defendants insist that the contract comes within the Statute of Frauds, KRS 361.040. Admitting arguendo, but not deciding, that these plans come under the terms of “goods or choses…”
Marilyn Shoe Co. v. Martin's Shoe Store, Inc., 253 S.W.2d 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). · cites it 2× “The issues raised on appeal are whether there was an acceptance of the goods so as to take this contract from under the provisions of KRS 361.040, our statute of frauds, and also whether this contract is taken out of the statute of frauds by reason of the fact that the goods…”
Hollis v. Rash, 212 S.W.2d 110 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). “One question raised is whether or not the court was in error in overruling objections to the testimony that the agreement was that the goods should be in Middlesboro on the 20th of July, and that there would be no sales to other merchants in the area. The objection was based on…”
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.