Narrative Opinion Summary
In a case before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, National Steel Service Center, Inc. sought payment from Wollin Silos Equipment, Inc. for steel sales made in 1974. The legal issue centered on whether an oral contract could be enforced under the statute of frauds, which requires written contracts for goods sold over $500. The case proceeded after Becker Equipment Corporation, initially a co-defendant, declared bankruptcy. Wollin Silos, which had a controlling interest in Becker, raised the statute of frauds defense late in the trial. National Steel argued that the statute of frauds was not timely raised and that an oral contract existed, supported by a purchase order from Becker Equipment. The trial court granted Wollin Silos a directed verdict, concluding there was no enforceable contract due to non-compliance with the statute of frauds, as the steel was delivered to Becker Equipment and not Wollin Silos. The trial court's decision was affirmed, concluding that no valid contract existed between National Steel and Wollin Silos, with the statute of frauds defense properly invoked. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the motion for reconsideration was denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Confirmation of Order and Statute of Fraudssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the invoices sent confirmed a sale to Becker Equipment, not Wollin Silos, thereby failing to establish a written contract between National Steel and Wollin Silos.
Reasoning: The trial court determined that the invoices confirmed obligations of Becker Equipment, as Albert Wollin, a vice president of Becker Equipment, had authority to make purchases for that entity but not for Wollin Silos.
Enforceability of Oral Contracts under Statute of Fraudssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court found an oral contract between Wollin Silos and National Steel unenforceable due to non-compliance with the statute of frauds, as no written contract existed for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more.
Reasoning: The judge removed the case from the jury, not due to insufficient proof but based on the legal conclusion regarding enforceability.
Exceptions to the Statute of Fraudssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: National Steel's argument that section 402.201(3)(c) provided an exception for enforceability was rejected because Becker Equipment, not Wollin Silos, received and accepted the goods.
Reasoning: However, evidence shows that Becker Equipment, not Wollin Silos, received and accepted the steel.
Statute of Frauds Defensesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The statute of frauds defense was deemed timely because the case was initiated before the change in pleading rules on January 1, 1976, allowing the defense to be raised without being initially pleaded.
Reasoning: The case, initiated on July 18, 1975, was governed by the prior pleading rules, which did not require the statute of frauds to be pleaded to raise the defense at trial.