Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-201 (2026)

Formal requirements: statute of frauds

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(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 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.

[PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. A, §16 (AMD); PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. E, §1 (AFF).]

(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.

[PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. A, §17 (AMD); PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. E, §1 (AFF).]

(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 (section 2‑606).

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. A, §§16, 17 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. E, §1 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1974–2018 · leading case: Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable ;|i ^5 ^ (b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contact for sale was made, but…”

Packgen v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Me. 2013). · cites it 8× “” 11 M.R.S. § 2-201(1). Packgen does not argue that any of its communications with BP constitute the signed writing required for enforceability under 11 M.”

MAINE SURGICAL SUPPLY, CO. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 597 (D. Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(1). It is undisputed that no writing sufficient to satisfy section 2-201 was produced by the parties.”

Precision Commc'ns, Inc. v. Rodrigue, 451 A.2d 300 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “He argues that the contract being oral is unenforceable because 1) the price of the goods was greater than $500, bringing the contract within the writing requirement of 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(1) (1964), and 2) Rodrigue was acting as a surety, bringing the contract within the…”

Blue Rock Indus. v. Raymond Int'l, Inc., 325 A.2d 66 (Me. 1974). “The statute of frauds, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201, has not been raised as an affirmative defense under M.”

Cont'l Can Co. v. Poultry Processing, Inc., 649 F. Supp. 570 (D. Me. 1986). · cites it 3× “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201 (1964). 3 . The provision provides: Additional terms in acceptance or confirmation (1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms…”

Paris Util. Dist. v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 665 F. Supp. 944 (D. Me. 1987). “1986); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 2-201(3)(b) (1964) (“If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made,” the contract is enforceable to the extent of the admission.”

Doane v. Pine State Volkswagen, Inc., 377 A.2d 481 (Me. 1977). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201. Although the appellant in its statement of points on appeal alleged error by the presiding justice in denying its motions, the appellant did not specifically state the Statute of Frauds as an issue on appeal.”

Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D. Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “Even if the seed order were found to be contracts they would not be enforceable because of the Statute of Frauds, UCC § 2-201, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201. The Sleepers have not shown that Agway did not purchase everything it committed to purchase.”

Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(2) (1964). Callier argues that Cives cannot avail itself of this provision because Cives is not a merchant.”

ARS Architecture, PA v. Winter Street, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2018). · cites it 3× “Defendants rely on 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201, which states that "a contract for the sale ofgoods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable .”

Grenier v. Patriot Subaru of Saco, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “11 M.R.S. § 2-201 (1 ). "Preliminary negotiations are not sufficient to create a contract.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-201(1) — 3 cases

MAINE SURGICAL SUPPLY, CO. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 597 (D. Me. 1991). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(1). It is undisputed that no writing sufficient to satisfy section 2-201 was produced by the parties.”

Precision Commc'ns, Inc. v. Rodrigue, 451 A.2d 300 (Me. 1982). “He argues that the contract being oral is unenforceable because 1) the price of the goods was greater than $500, bringing the contract within the writing requirement of 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(1) (1964), and 2) Rodrigue was acting as a surety, bringing the contract within the…”

Packgen v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Me. 2013). “” 11 M.R.S. § 2-201(1). Packgen does not argue that any of its communications with BP constitute the signed writing required for enforceability under 11 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-201(2) — 2 cases

Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003). “(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable ;|i ^5 ^ (b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contact for sale was made, but…”

Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201(2) (1964). Callier argues that Cives cannot avail itself of this provision because Cives is not a merchant.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-201(3) — 1 case

Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D. Me. 2006). “Even if the seed order were found to be contracts they would not be enforceable because of the Statute of Frauds, UCC § 2-201, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201. The Sleepers have not shown that Agway did not purchase everything it committed to purchase.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-201(3)(a) — 1 case

Packgen v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Me. 2013). “” 11 M.R.S. § 2-201(1). Packgen does not argue that any of its communications with BP constitute the signed writing required for enforceability under 11 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-201(3)(b) — 4 cases

Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003). “(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable ;|i ^5 ^ (b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contact for sale was made, but…”

Packgen v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Me. 2013). “” 11 M.R.S. § 2-201(1). Packgen does not argue that any of its communications with BP constitute the signed writing required for enforceability under 11 M.”

Paris Util. Dist. v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 665 F. Supp. 944 (D. Me. 1987). “1986); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 2-201(3)(b) (1964) (“If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made,” the contract is enforceable to the extent of the admission.”

Cont'l Can Co. v. Poultry Processing, Inc., 649 F. Supp. 570 (D. Me. 1986). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-201 (1964). 3 . The provision provides: Additional terms in acceptance or confirmation (1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms…”

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.