Court Case: Harvest States Cooperatives V. Anderson
The plaintiff of this case is Harvest States Cooperatives and the defendant is Anderson. Harvest States Cooperatives sued Anderson for breach of contract, after Anderson failed to deliver 5,000 bushels of corn. Anderson had spoken to a representative of the coop over the phone to inquire the price of corn which he had available for sale. Harvest States Cooperatives asked Anderson if he would like to see a contract and Anderson said yes. Following through, Harvest States Cooperatives sent Anderson an unsigned confirmation of contract in the mail, considering the agreement now under contract. However, the defendant, Anderson claims that he did not sign the contract which he received in the mail, and did not sent it back because he believed he
had the option to accept or reject the offer. The plaintiff, Harvest States Cooperatives used the concept of law that the defendant committed a breach of contract, by failing to deliver the 5,000 bushels of corn that had been discussed over the phone and they had sent and unsigned confirmation of contract for. The defendant used the concept of law that since there was no written agreement, the alleged transaction violated the statue of frauds. The trail court originally concluded that, “a farmer who sells grain is a merchant” and ruled that because the transaction was “between merchants,” and the parties had entered into an oral contract, the written confirmation eliminated the statute of frauds defense. Anderson then argued that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he was a “merchant.” The definition of a “merchant” was then further examined. The term merchant separates “professionals” from “casual or inexperienced sellers or buyers,” leaving the concept of professionalism in debate. The trial court then determined that Anderson did not own a farm and his previous experiences with selling small quantities of corn without contract, placed him under the category of a “casual and inexperienced seller.” Therefore the court ruled, “We conclude that he is not a ‘merchant’ in respect to the sale of corn in question, and is therefore not bound to any contract.” I agree with the final ruling that Anderson, by definition, is not a “merchant” with regard to the small quantity of corn he was simply inquiring a price for and looking to sell. Since Anderson is not considered a “merchant” his statue of frauds defense is valid. No written agreement existed, therefore, he is not guilty of committing breach of contract by failing to deliver the 5,000 bushels of corn.
had the option to accept or reject the offer. The plaintiff, Harvest States Cooperatives used the concept of law that the defendant committed a breach of contract, by failing to deliver the 5,000 bushels of corn that had been discussed over the phone and they had sent and unsigned confirmation of contract for. The defendant used the concept of law that since there was no written agreement, the alleged transaction violated the statue of frauds. The trail court originally concluded that, “a farmer who sells grain is a merchant” and ruled that because the transaction was “between merchants,” and the parties had entered into an oral contract, the written confirmation eliminated the statute of frauds defense. Anderson then argued that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he was a “merchant.” The definition of a “merchant” was then further examined. The term merchant separates “professionals” from “casual or inexperienced sellers or buyers,” leaving the concept of professionalism in debate. The trial court then determined that Anderson did not own a farm and his previous experiences with selling small quantities of corn without contract, placed him under the category of a “casual and inexperienced seller.” Therefore the court ruled, “We conclude that he is not a ‘merchant’ in respect to the sale of corn in question, and is therefore not bound to any contract.” I agree with the final ruling that Anderson, by definition, is not a “merchant” with regard to the small quantity of corn he was simply inquiring a price for and looking to sell. Since Anderson is not considered a “merchant” his statue of frauds defense is valid. No written agreement existed, therefore, he is not guilty of committing breach of contract by failing to deliver the 5,000 bushels of corn.