Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 30. TRADE AND COMMERCE · CHAPTER 2. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE SALES · Part 2. Form, Formation, and Readjustment of Contract
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 30-2-201 (2026)

Formal Requirements -- Statute Of Frauds

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 30
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 2
  5. 30-2-201 Formal requirements -- statute of frauds

TITLE 30. TRADE AND COMMERCE

CHAPTER 2. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE SALES

Part 2. Form, Formation, and Readjustment of Contract

Formal Requirements -- Statute Of Frauds

30-2-201. Formal requirements -- statute of frauds. (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.

(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.

(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 the party's 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 (30-2-606).

History: En. Sec. 2-201, Ch. 264, L. 1963; R.C.M. 1947, 87A-2-201; amd. Sec. 838, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 200, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 2000 MT 213 (Mont. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 2000 MT 213 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 37× “Subsection (1) of § 30-2-201, MCA, provides as follows: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract…”
S & P Brake Supply, Inc. v. STEMCO LP, 2016 MT 324 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 15× “The comments to the Montana UCC explain that “ ‘[plartial performance’ as a substitute for the required memorandum can validate the contract only for the goods which have been accepted or for which payment has been made and accepted.”
Smith v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 1998 MT 280 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 20× “The general provision of that statute reads in pertinent part: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a…”
Scott v. Hjelm, 613 P.2d 1385 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 20× “Section 30-2-201, MCA, reads as follows: " Formal requirements — statute of frauds.”
Palin v. Gebert Logging, Inc., 716 P.2d 200 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 6× “The District Court acted properly therefore in entering judgment against Palin for the sum of $10,000, the amount of bond which he held, plus accrued interest thereon, and was further correct in dismissing Palin’s cross claim for damages to the realty, since he was not the owner…”
Columbia Grain Int'l v. Cereck, 852 P.2d 676 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 3× “Section 30-2-201(1), MCA. The contract here involved the sale of goods for over $500.”
Webcor Elec., Inc. v. Home Elec., Inc., 754 P.2d 491 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 6× “Section 30-2-201, MCA. The proposed instruction is misleading because it also requires a writing for any agreement as to the MacIntyres’ receiving a distributorship.”
Pierson v. Arnst, 534 F. Supp. 360 (D. Mont. 1982). · cites it 6× “Accordingly, the alleged contract at issue is unenforceable since it failed to comply with the Statute of Frauds as codified in § 30-2-201 M.C.A. (1979). For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Robert Arnst’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Trad Indus., Ltd. v. Brogan, 805 P.2d 54 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 2× “Section 30-2-209(3), MCA, further requires that the statute of frauds, § 30-2-201, MCA, must be satisfied if the contract, as modified, is within its provisions.”
Deschamps v. Treasure State Trailer Court, Ltd., 2010 MT 74 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 4× “¶36 Statute of Frauds and Rule 12-Declaratory Judgment ¶37 The District Court also concluded that Deschamps’ breach of contract claim alleging Rasmussen’s/Estate’s failure to convey Rasmussen’s personal mobile units was futile in that he failed to establish the existence of a…”
Fire Supply & Serv., Inc. v. Chico Hot Springs, 639 P.2d 1160 (Mont. 1982). “Although this contract and any modifications would ordinarily be subject to the statute of frauds because they involve goods with a value greater than $500 (sections 30-2-201(1), - 209(3), MCA), there is an applicable exception under section 30-2-209(4), MCA, in which an…”
Lloyd v. Towe (In Re Towe), 225 B.R. 492 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1997). · cites it 4× “” Mont.Code Ann. § 30-2-201(3)(c). With regard to the statute of limitations, actions to quiet title to an automobile based on possession of the certificate of title do not fall within any specific statute of limitations.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 30-2-201(1) — 11 cases
Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 2000 MT 213 (Mont. 2000). “Subsection (1) of § 30-2-201, MCA, provides as follows: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract…”
S & P Brake Supply, Inc. v. STEMCO LP, 2016 MT 324 (Mont. 2016). “The comments to the Montana UCC explain that “ ‘[plartial performance’ as a substitute for the required memorandum can validate the contract only for the goods which have been accepted or for which payment has been made and accepted.”
Columbia Grain Int'l v. Cereck, 852 P.2d 676 (Mont. 1993). “Section 30-2-201(1), MCA. The contract here involved the sale of goods for over $500.”
Palin v. Gebert Logging, Inc., 716 P.2d 200 (Mont. 1986). “The District Court acted properly therefore in entering judgment against Palin for the sum of $10,000, the amount of bond which he held, plus accrued interest thereon, and was further correct in dismissing Palin’s cross claim for damages to the realty, since he was not the owner…”
Smith v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 1998 MT 280 (Mont. 1998). “The general provision of that statute reads in pertinent part: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 30-2-201(2) — 3 cases
Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 2000 MT 213 (Mont. 2000). “Subsection (1) of § 30-2-201, MCA, provides as follows: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract…”
Smith v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 1998 MT 280 (Mont. 1998). “The general provision of that statute reads in pertinent part: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a…”
Pierson v. Arnst, 534 F. Supp. 360 (D. Mont. 1982). “Accordingly, the alleged contract at issue is unenforceable since it failed to comply with the Statute of Frauds as codified in § 30-2-201 M.C.A. (1979). For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Robert Arnst’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 30-2-201(3) — 1 case
S & P Brake Supply, Inc. v. STEMCO LP, 2016 MT 324 (Mont. 2016). “The comments to the Montana UCC explain that “ ‘[plartial performance’ as a substitute for the required memorandum can validate the contract only for the goods which have been accepted or for which payment has been made and accepted.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 30-2-201(3)(b) — 1 case
Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 2000 MT 213 (Mont. 2000). “Subsection (1) of § 30-2-201, MCA, provides as follows: 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 some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 30-2-201(3)(c) — 2 cases
S & P Brake Supply, Inc. v. STEMCO LP, 2016 MT 324 (Mont. 2016). “The comments to the Montana UCC explain that “ ‘[plartial performance’ as a substitute for the required memorandum can validate the contract only for the goods which have been accepted or for which payment has been made and accepted.”
Lloyd v. Towe (In Re Towe), 225 B.R. 492 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1997). “” Mont.Code Ann. § 30-2-201(3)(c). With regard to the statute of limitations, actions to quiet title to an automobile based on possession of the certificate of title do not fall within any specific statute of limitations.”
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.