Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 (2026)
Formation in general
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.
- (2) An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined.
- (3) Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-204; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-204, eff. 3/31/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1980–2013 · leading case: Natchez Elec. & Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 968 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 2007).
Natchez Elec. & Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 968 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 2007). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 (1) (Rev.2002).”
Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 789 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1986). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-2-204(1), 75-2-208(3), 75-2-209(a); Tex.”
Juanita B. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc., D/B/A Turan-Foley Mitsubishi, 65 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 1995). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-204 (1972). Such a contract, though not satisfying the requirements of the statute of frauds, is nonetheless enforceable with respect to those goods for which payment has been made and accepted.”
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “Finally, the parties’ “course of performance” is consistent only with Mid-South’s expressed offer and Shoney’s expressed acceptance of the new price.”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 . 6 So, then, the Oeto *435 ber 17,1994, letter, argues plaintiff, in that it evidences a contract, was signed by the defendant, and specifies a quantity, satisfies the requirements of Miss.”
Alabama Great S. R. Co. v. McVay, 381 So. 2d 607 (Miss. 1980). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 (1972); Squillante & Fonseca, 1 Williston on *611 Sales §§ 7-2 and 7-3 (4th Ed.”
DC Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Slay Steel, Inc., 109 So. 3d 577 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “§ 75-2-301 (general obligations of the parties); Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-206 (providing that an order to buy goods invites acceptance).”
Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc. (5th Cir. 1995). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-204 (1972). Such a contract, though not satisfying the requirements of the statute of frauds, is nonetheless enforceable with respect to those goods for which payment has been made and accepted.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204(1) — 4 cases
Natchez Elec. & Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 968 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 2007). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 (1) (Rev.2002).”
Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 789 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1986). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-2-204(1), 75-2-208(3), 75-2-209(a); Tex.”
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “Finally, the parties’ “course of performance” is consistent only with Mid-South’s expressed offer and Shoney’s expressed acceptance of the new price.”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 . 6 So, then, the Oeto *435 ber 17,1994, letter, argues plaintiff, in that it evidences a contract, was signed by the defendant, and specifies a quantity, satisfies the requirements of Miss.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204(3) — 1 case
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-204 . 6 So, then, the Oeto *435 ber 17,1994, letter, argues plaintiff, in that it evidences a contract, was signed by the defendant, and specifies a quantity, satisfies the requirements of Miss.”
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.