Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (2026)
Formal requirements; statute of frauds
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500.00) 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 made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.
- (2) Between merchants if within a reasonable time a writing 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 such party unless written notice 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 (Section 2-606) [Section 75-2-606].
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-201; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-201, eff. 3/31/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi, 65 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 1995).
Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi, 65 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 1995). “Mississippi has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, and whether there is an enforceable contract that satisfies the statute of frauds is governed by Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1981). Generally, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is not enforceable unless there…”
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of Mississippi, 459 F. Supp. 7 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “Although Perdue denies that the October 30, and November 10, 1975, contracts exist, it contends that if, arguendo, the contracts do exist summary judgment should be granted and Count I of the counterclaim dismissed because the contracts do not satisfy the statute of frauds found…”
Dawkins & Co. v. L & L PLANTING CO., 602 So. 2d 838 (Miss. 1992). “The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Dawkins' action was barred by the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1972) (Statute of Frauds).”
Greenpoint AG, LLC v. Kent (In re Kent), 554 B.R. 131 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (2). Greenpoint argued that because both parties are merchants, the statute of frauds is satisfied even if Kent did not sign an invoice each time he received goods.”
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(a). 6 . See Cosden Oil & Chem.”
Futch v. James River-Norwalk, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Miss. 1989). “4 James River bases its motion for summary judgment on its contention that the applicable Mississippi statutes of frauds, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201 and § 15-3-1 (1972), bar enforcement of the alleged oral agreement between the parties.”
H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA & Formosa Plastics Corp., Texas & J-M Mfg. Co., 860 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1988). “H & W argues that the August 22 agreement is covered exclusively by Mississippi’s Uniform Commercial Code statute of frauds, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (2) (1972). The Code provides that, as between merchants, a written confirmation of a contract (as was present in this case)…”
Am. Cable v. Trilogy Commc'ns, 754 So. 2d 545 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “Trilogy asserts there were signed delivery receipts for all, but makes no explanation as to why the third one was not produced.”
Migerobe, Inc. v. Certina Usa, Inc., 924 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1991). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1972); Perdue Farms, Inc.”
Hunt Oil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 853 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1988). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1972 & 1987 Supp.”
Ivey's Plumbing & Elec. Co. v. Petrochem Maint., Inc., 463 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “Admittedly, there is no writing of any kind executed by Petrochem in relation to the quotation which it made to Ivey’s, nor does it appear without dispute that Petrochem has admitted facts which would form a contract enforceable under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(b). A serious…”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(1). If the contract for the sale of goods is between merchants, there is no requirement of a writing if “within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(1) — 5 cases
Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi, 65 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 1995). “Mississippi has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, and whether there is an enforceable contract that satisfies the statute of frauds is governed by Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1981). Generally, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is not enforceable unless there…”
Futch v. James River-Norwalk, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Miss. 1989). “4 James River bases its motion for summary judgment on its contention that the applicable Mississippi statutes of frauds, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201 and § 15-3-1 (1972), bar enforcement of the alleged oral agreement between the parties.”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(1). If the contract for the sale of goods is between merchants, there is no requirement of a writing if “within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has…”
T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 793 F. Supp. 707 (S.D. Miss. 1992).
Wood v. Stuart C Irby Co. (S.D. Miss. 2024).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(2) — 4 cases
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of Mississippi, 459 F. Supp. 7 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “Although Perdue denies that the October 30, and November 10, 1975, contracts exist, it contends that if, arguendo, the contracts do exist summary judgment should be granted and Count I of the counterclaim dismissed because the contracts do not satisfy the statute of frauds found…”
Greenpoint AG, LLC v. Kent (In re Kent), 554 B.R. 131 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (2). Greenpoint argued that because both parties are merchants, the statute of frauds is satisfied even if Kent did not sign an invoice each time he received goods.”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(1). If the contract for the sale of goods is between merchants, there is no requirement of a writing if “within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has…”
H & W Indus., INC. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 687 F. Supp. 271 (N.D. Miss. 1988).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(a) — 2 cases
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(a). 6 . See Cosden Oil & Chem.”
Futch v. James River-Norwalk, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Miss. 1989). “4 James River bases its motion for summary judgment on its contention that the applicable Mississippi statutes of frauds, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201 and § 15-3-1 (1972), bar enforcement of the alleged oral agreement between the parties.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(b) — 3 cases
Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi, 65 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 1995). “Mississippi has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, and whether there is an enforceable contract that satisfies the statute of frauds is governed by Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1981). Generally, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is not enforceable unless there…”
Ivey's Plumbing & Elec. Co. v. Petrochem Maint., Inc., 463 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “Admittedly, there is no writing of any kind executed by Petrochem in relation to the quotation which it made to Ivey’s, nor does it appear without dispute that Petrochem has admitted facts which would form a contract enforceable under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(b). A serious…”
Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc. (5th Cir. 1995).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(c) — 2 cases
Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi, 65 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 1995). “Mississippi has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, and whether there is an enforceable contract that satisfies the statute of frauds is governed by Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (1981). Generally, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is not enforceable unless there…”
Greenpoint AG, LLC v. Kent (In re Kent), 554 B.R. 131 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201 (2). Greenpoint argued that because both parties are merchants, the statute of frauds is satisfied even if Kent did not sign an invoice each time he received goods.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(l) — 1 case
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201(3)(a). 6 . See Cosden Oil & Chem.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-201(l)(1972) — 1 case
Futch v. James River-Norwalk, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Miss. 1989). “4 James River bases its motion for summary judgment on its contention that the applicable Mississippi statutes of frauds, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-201 and § 15-3-1 (1972), bar enforcement of the alleged oral agreement between the parties.”
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.