NRS
104.2201 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 his or her 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 (NRS 104.2606).
(Added to NRS by 1965,
787; A 2023,
3181)
Notes of Decisions
Azevedo v. Minister (1970)
nev · cites it 9×
“NRS 104.2201 provides: “1. Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforcible [sic] by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has *579 been…”
Leven v. Frey (2007)
nev
“2201(2), which provides that, for contracts governed under the Uniform Commercial Code, a confirming memorandum must be sent within a “reasonable time” after an oral contract is made in order for the contract to become effective, and concluding that appellant’s delay of ten…”
Campanelli v. Conservas Altamira, S.A. (1970)
nev
“If a buyer-merchant fails to object to the written confirmation of an agreement from a seller-merchant, within ten days of its receipt, the writing becomes a binding contract.”
Shults v. Faulkiner (In re Faulkiner) (2018)
nvb
“3103(1) (e and h). In Tofani , the Nevada intermediate appellate court observed that "An equitable claim like unjust enrichment requires no proof whatsoever of intent or state of mind; it's a strict liability claim based solely on notions of equity.”
8 Mine, LLC v. The Eljen Group, LLC (2020)
nvd
“8 Mine/Tackett argue that this claim fails as it does not comply with the statute of 2 frauds, NRS 104.2201, which requires that a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more be in 3 writing to be enforceable.”
Welk Biology Co., Ltd. v. Hakumo LLC (2025)
nvd
“20 21 6 The counter-defendants raised numerous arguments for the first time in their reply briefs, including that the alleged oral agreement does not satisfy Nevada Revised Statutes § 104.2201; 22 that Hakumo has not alleged a material breach; that the unjust enrichment and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2201(1) — 1 case
Shults v. Faulkiner (In re Faulkiner) (2018)
nvb
“3103(1) (e and h). In Tofani , the Nevada intermediate appellate court observed that "An equitable claim like unjust enrichment requires no proof whatsoever of intent or state of mind; it's a strict liability claim based solely on notions of equity.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2201(2) — 2 cases
Azevedo v. Minister (1970)
nev
“NRS 104.2201 provides: “1. Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforcible [sic] by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has *579 been…”
Leven v. Frey (2007)
nev
“2201(2), which provides that, for contracts governed under the Uniform Commercial Code, a confirming memorandum must be sent within a “reasonable time” after an oral contract is made in order for the contract to become effective, and concluding that appellant’s delay of ten…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2201(3) — 1 case
Azevedo v. Minister (1970)
nev
“NRS 104.2201 provides: “1. Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforcible [sic] by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has *579 been…”
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.