Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201 (2026)
Formal requirements - Statute of frauds
✓ current as of May 2026
- (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a contract for sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500) or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing or 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 his authorized agent or broker. A writing or record 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 or record.
- (2) Between merchants if within a reasonable time a writing or 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 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 (§ 47-2-606).
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-201); 1997, ch. 272, § 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Anthony v. Tidwell, 560 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1977).
Anthony v. Tidwell, 560 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1977). “02(6), asserting, inter alia, that the contract alleged in the complaint was unenforceable under the provisions of T.C.A. § 47-2-201. This statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the…”
Orlowski v. Bates, 146 F. Supp. 3d 908 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201 (1). Alternatively, the Statute of Frauds is satisfied and an enforceable contract results “with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted.”
Billie Mclemore v. J.W. Powell & Raymond Nelson, 968 S.W.2d 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “In Count I of the complaint, MeLemore demands payment of the promissory note from Powell, pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-201 et seq., for the transaction entered into by Nelson on Powell’s behalf, plus attorney’s fees and interest.”
Brooks Cotton Co., Inc. v. Bradley F. Williams, 381 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201(a). It is undisputed that the alleged contract for the sale of Mr.”
Massey v. Hardcastle, 753 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “(T.C.A. 47-2-201) j. The alleged contract was for the sale of personal property in an amount or value in excess of $5,000 — and the subject matter not being reasonably identified, the alleged contract was unenforceable by reason of the statute of frauds.”
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Mktg. & Supply Co., 694 F. Supp. 2d 888 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201. 18 . Triangle Marketing, Inc.”
Hardin v. Cliff Pettit Motors, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. Tenn. 1976). “The applicable Statute of Frauds is T.C.A. 47-2-201 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Formal requirements — Statute of frauds.”
Hamilton Bank of Morristown v. Bank of Com. (In Re Morristown Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.), 25 B.R. 377 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982). “2-201(3) (1972), the counterpart to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201 (3)(b) (1979), enacts: “A contract which does not satisfy the require- • ments of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable .”
Upperline Equip. Co. v. J & M, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). “§§ 47-2-201 to -210. As required under the Statute of Frauds, the Purchase Agreement contemplates a sale of goods, the barge package, as defined by Tennessee’s UCC, and the purchase price exceeds $500.”
Waldschmidt v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (In Re Messenger), 166 B.R. 631 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1994). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-209. This retail installment contract contains such a clause.”
Best Signs, Inc. v. Bobby King, 358 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201(20). From the record, it is clear that both Best Signs and Design Team were the victims of a scheme orchestrated by Mr.”
Stovall of Chattanooga, Inc. v. Cunningham, 890 S.W.2d 442 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “(3) The requirements of the statute of frauds section of this chapter (§ 47-2-201) must be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(1) — 6 cases
Massey v. Hardcastle, 753 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “(T.C.A. 47-2-201) j. The alleged contract was for the sale of personal property in an amount or value in excess of $5,000 — and the subject matter not being reasonably identified, the alleged contract was unenforceable by reason of the statute of frauds.”
Upperline Equip. Co. v. J & M, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). “§§ 47-2-201 to -210. As required under the Statute of Frauds, the Purchase Agreement contemplates a sale of goods, the barge package, as defined by Tennessee’s UCC, and the purchase price exceeds $500.”
Gameel Mesad v. Joseph Yousef (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
BiotronX, LLC v. Tech One Biomedical, LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2020).
Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Woods, 640 S.W.2d 543 (Tenn. 1982).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(20) — 1 case
Best Signs, Inc. v. Bobby King, 358 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201(20). From the record, it is clear that both Best Signs and Design Team were the victims of a scheme orchestrated by Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(3)(b) — 4 cases
Anthony v. Tidwell, 560 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1977). “02(6), asserting, inter alia, that the contract alleged in the complaint was unenforceable under the provisions of T.C.A. § 47-2-201. This statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the…”
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Mktg. & Supply Co., 694 F. Supp. 2d 888 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201. 18 . Triangle Marketing, Inc.”
Hamilton Bank of Morristown v. Bank of Com. (In Re Morristown Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.), 25 B.R. 377 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982). “2-201(3) (1972), the counterpart to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201 (3)(b) (1979), enacts: “A contract which does not satisfy the require- • ments of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable .”
Offroad Performance v. John Walls (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(3)(c) — 4 cases
Anthony v. Tidwell, 560 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1977). “02(6), asserting, inter alia, that the contract alleged in the complaint was unenforceable under the provisions of T.C.A. § 47-2-201. This statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the…”
Hardin v. Cliff Pettit Motors, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. Tenn. 1976). “The applicable Statute of Frauds is T.C.A. 47-2-201 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Formal requirements — Statute of frauds.”
Norwood v. Crabtree (In Re Crabtree), 39 B.R. 713 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984).
Offroad Performance v. John Walls (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(9) — 2 cases
Best Signs, Inc. v. Bobby King, 358 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201(20). From the record, it is clear that both Best Signs and Design Team were the victims of a scheme orchestrated by Mr.”
Best Signs, Inc. v. Bobby King, Design Team, Inc., & City of Savannah, Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(a) — 1 case
Brooks Cotton Co., Inc. v. Bradley F. Williams, 381 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201(a). It is undisputed that the alleged contract for the sale of Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(b) — 1 case
Brooks Cotton Co., Inc. v. Bradley F. Williams, 381 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-201(a). It is undisputed that the alleged contract for the sale of Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-201(l) — 1 case
Hardin v. Cliff Pettit Motors, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. Tenn. 1976). “The applicable Statute of Frauds is T.C.A. 47-2-201 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Formal requirements — Statute of frauds.”
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.