| Watch this video featuring John Bathke, faculty member at the Forbes School of Business and Technology. |
| TranscriptDownload Transcript |
Filbert’s Meat Shop, LLC shipped to Sonic Taco, a company based in Yuma, Arizona, an order of chorizo and machaca beef. That same day, Filbert’s mailed an invoice for the order for $11,000, based on the understanding that an oral contract existed between the parties, whereby Sonic Taco had agreed to pay for the meat. Sonic Taco was engaged in the real estate business at this time and had earlier been approached by Filbert’s Meat to discuss that company’s real estate investment potential. Sonic Taco denied ever guaranteeing payment for the meat and raised the Uniform Commercial Codes Statute of Frauds, Section 2-201, as an affirmative defense. Filbert’s Meat Shop contended that because Sonic Taco was in the business of buying and selling real estate, they possessed knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices involved in the transaction here. After hearing the evidence, the court concluded as a matter of law that Sonic Taco did agree to pay for the meat and was liable to Filbert’s Meat Shop in the amount of $11,000. Sonic Taco appealed.
In your discussion post, address the following questions:
- Is this a case governed by the UCC?
- If it was under common law, is the result different than the UCC?
- How should the appeals court rule?
Your initial response should be a minimum of 200 words
