Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PRESTI v. WILSON

September 27, 1972

Robert PRESTI, Plaintiff,
v.
Ralph C. WILSON, Jr., individually and doing business as Oxford Stable, Defendant


Judd, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JUDD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JUDD, District Judge.

 A motion by defendant seller in this diversity contract action asks summary judgment against plaintiff buyer on the basis of the statute of frauds. The action is one for damages for failure to complete the sale of a race horse.

 Facts

 The complaint asserts that plaintiff made an oral agreement with the defendant by a telephone call in October 1970 to buy a thoroughbred "Goal Line Stand" for the sum of $60,000, that he sent defendant a form of bill of sale and a check for the $60,000, post-dated December 1, 1970, and that defendant retained the check. It is asserted that defendant told plaintiff in a later conversation that he wished not to consummate the transaction until after January 1, 1971 for tax reasons, and that he would send the foal certificate in February 1971. The check was neither deposited nor negotiated, but plaintiff asserts that he kept money in his account to meet it.

 Defendant asserts by answer and by affidavit that he never agreed to sell "Goal Line Stand" to plaintiff, that he never received a check from plaintiff for "Goal Line Stand," and that he never received the bill of sale which plaintiff describes.

 Plaintiff's claim is supported by a copy of his check stub and by the affidavit of his executive assistant, who says that he monitored both telephone calls and prepared and mailed the bill of sale and the check.

 The Law

 The sale of a horse is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code covering sales of goods. The statute of frauds contained therein, U.C.C. ยง 2-201, states:

 
(1) . . . 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 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 . . .
 
. . .
 
(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable . . .
 
(b) if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.