CARGILL INC v WILSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12826 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 CARGILL INCORPORATED, a corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - KENNETH L. WILSON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Bernard W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Tipp and Hoven, Missoula, Montana Vernon Hoven argued, Missoula , Montana F o r Respondent : J a r d i n e , Stephenson, B l e w e t t & Weaver, Great F a l l s , Montana L. Morris Ormseth argued, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana - - Submitted : January 15, 1975 Decided : Filed : WAR 11 1975 Clerk MAR 11 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , H i l l County, i n a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by Z a r g i l l I n c o r p o r a t e d a g a i n s t Kenneth Wilson, a H i l l County wheat farmer. The j u r y h e l d i n f a v o r of C a r g i l l and damages were a s s e s s e d a t $21,011.50, i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t and c o s t s . Defendant Kenneth W i l s o n , h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Wilson, i s a Havre r e s i d e n t who o p e r a t e s a farm c o n s i s t i n g o f f o u r s e c t i o n s o f l a n d n e a r Rudyard, Montana. P l a i n t i f f C a r g i l l Incorporated, hereinafter referred t o as Cargill, i s a large, national grain company which m a i n t a i n s a g r a i n e l e v a t o r i n Hingham, Montana. Hingham e l e v a t o r i s managed by one Marcus " O l e " Warren. The Warren purchased wheat from Wilson d u r i n g t h e t e n o r t w e l v e y e a r s p r i o r t o t h i s lawsuit. The e v e n t s which gave r i s e t o t h e i n s t a n t l i t i g a t i o n a r e : On t h e morning of August 24, 1972, Wilson t e l e p h o n e d Warren a t t h e Hingham g r a i n e l e v a t o r t o i n q u i r e a b o u t t h e c u r r e n t p r i c e o f wheat. Warren quoted a p r i c e of $1.50 a b u s h e l . Wilson d e c l i n e d t o s e l l h i s wheat a t t h a t t i m e . However, d u r i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n of t h e same day Wilson a g a i n t e l e p h o n e d Warren and was informed t h e p r i c e o f w i n t e r wheat had dropped f o u r c e n t s a b u s h e l t o $1.46. c o n f l i c t i n t h e testimony. A t t h i s point there i s a Warren t e s t i f i e d h e and Wilson t h e n e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l c o n t r a c t o v e r t h e t e l e p h o n e whereby Wilson was t o s e l l 28,000 b u s h e l s o f o r d i n a r y w i n t e r wheat a t $1.48 a b u s h e l and 6,000 b u s h e l s of h i g h e r p r o t e i n wheat a t $1.63 a b u s h e l . On t h e o t h e r hand, Wilson a d m i t t e d h e had e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l agreement b u t t e s t i f i e d he had a g r e e d t o s e l l o n l y 11,000 b u s h e l s o f o r d i n a r y w i n t e r wheat a t $1.48 a b u s h e l . F o l l o w i n g t h e t e l e p h o n e c a l l , Warren c o n t a c t e d C a r g i l l ' s head o f f i c e i n G r e a t F a l l s and n o t i f i e d i t o f t h e p u r c h a s e . He a l s o completed two s t a n d a r d g r a i n p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s , one numbered 86027 f o r t h e o r d i n a r y w i n t e r w h e a t ; t h e o t h e r numbered 86028 f o r t h e h i g h e r p r o t e i n w i n t e r wheat. The c o n t r a c t s r e f l e c t e d t h e terms of t h e agreement a s t e s t i f i e d t o by Warren. Warren signed t h e c o n t r a c t s a s agent of C a r g i l l and signed Wilson's name i n t h e s e l l e r ' s s i g n a t u r e block. A few days l a t e r Warren d e l i v e r e d a copy of each c o n t r a c t t o Wilson who noted t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t s and made no o b j e c t i o n t o them. He a l s o made no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t h i s name had been signed t o t h e c o n t r a c t s by Warren. O August 30, 1972, Wilson r e c e i v e d an i n t e r e s t f r e e advance n of $10,000 from C a r g i l l . Such an advance i s a loan from a g r a i n company secured by e x i s t i n g f u t u r e d e l i v e r y c o n t r a c t s f o r g r a i n . This loan was i n t e r e s t f r e e by custom b u t a s an advance on t h e contract. free. Had i t n o t been an advance i t would n o t have been i n t e r e s t The advance was made by check connected t o a d e t a c h a b l e p a r t of a s t a n d a r d form which i d e n t i f i e d t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and t h e purpose of t h e payment. 80027 and 86028''. The form i d e n t i f i e d t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a s "Advance on Wilson accepted t h e check w i t h t h e form a t t a c h e d and made no o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e form r e f e r r e d t o t h e c o n t r a c t s a s t e s t i f i e d t o by Warren. During t h e months of September and October 1972, Wilson began h a u l i n g h i s wheat t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r ; 11,000 b u s h e l s of o r d i n a r y w i n t e r wheat a t t h e agreed p r i c e of $1.48 and 6,000 b u s h e l s a t a h i g h e r c u r r e n t market p r i c e . However, i n December, Warren discovered t h a t Wilson d i d n o t i n t e n d t o a b i d e by t h e terms of t h e g r a i n purchase c o n t r a c t s and d e l i v e r t h e balance of t h e wheat. a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d . A breach of c o n t r a c t A H i l l County j u r y found Wilson l i a b l e under t h e o r a l agreement a s t e s t i f i e d t o by Warren. Wilson a s s e r t e d t h e defense of t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s a t a l l times d u r i n g t h i s a c t i o n . Appellant Wilson p r e s e n t s s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r review on a p p e a l b u t we f i n d t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s : Whether t h e o r a l agreement f o r t h e s a l e of t h e wheat, p l u s t h e exchange o f s e v e r a l documents, was s u f f i c i e n t t o remove t h e o r a l agreement from t h e s t a t u t e of frauds? W find i n the affirmative. e ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t e of f r a u d s , s e t f o r t h i n t h e Uniform Comm e r c i a l Code, s e c t i o n 878-2-201(1), R.C.M.1947, provides: 11 Except a s otherwise provided i n t h i s s e c t i o n a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e of goods f o r t h e p r i c e of $500 o r more i s n o t e n f o r c e a b l e by way of a c t i o n o r defense u n l e s s t h e r e i s some w r i t i n g s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e has been made between t h e p a r t i e s and signed by t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom enforcement i s sought o r by h i s a u t h o r i z e d agent o r broker. A w r i t i n g i s n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t because i t omits o r i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s a term agreed upon b u t t h e c o n t r a c t i s n o t e n f o r c e a b l e under t h i s paragraph beyond t h e q u a n t i t y of goods shown i n such writing. 1 The o f f i c i a l comment t o t h i s s e c t i o n i n t h e Uniform Commercial Code states this rule: "Only t h r e e d e f i n i t e and i n v a r i a b l e requirements a s t o t h e memorandum a r e made by t h i s s u b s e c t i o n . F i r s t , i t must evidence a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e of goods; second, i t must be 1 s i g n e d f , a word which i n c l u d e s any a u t h e n t i c a t i o n which i d e n t i f i e s t h e p a r t y t o b e charged; and t h i r d , i t must s p e c i f y a q u a n t i t y . S e c t i o n 87A-2-201(2), R.C.M. I1 1947, s e t s f o r t h t h i s p r i n c i p l e : I1 Between merchants i f w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time a w r i t i n g i n confirmation of t h e c o n t r a c t and s u f f i c i e n t a g a i n s t t h e sender i s r e c e i v e d and t h e p a r t y r e c e i v i n g i t has r e a s o n t o know i t s c o n t e n t s , i t s a t i s f i e s t h e requirements of s u b s e c t i o n (1) a g a i n s t such p a r t y u n l e s s w r i t t e n n o t i c e of o b j e c t i o n t o i t s c o n t e n t s i s given w i t h i n t e n days a f t e r i t i s received." I n Gravelin v. P o r i e r , 77 Mont. 260, 281, 250 P. 823, t h i s Court c i t i n g Pomeroy on C o n t r a c t s , S p e c i f i c Performance, Sec. 74, p. 104, s a i d : he c o n t r o l l i n g motive of t h e s t a t u t e i s one of expediency and convenience, and t h i s motive has always been k e p t i n view by t h e a b l e s t c o u r t s i n t h e i r work o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . As t h e primary o b j e c t i s t o prevent m i s t a k e s , f r a u d s , and p e r j u r i e s , by s u b s t i t u t i n g w r i t t e n f o r o r a l evidence i n t h e most important c l a s s e s of c o n t r a c t s , t h e c o u r t s of e q u i t y have e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p r i n c i p l e , which they apply under v a r i o u s circumstances, t h a t i t s h a l l n o t be used a s an instrument f o r t h e accomplishment of f r a u d u l e n t purposes; designed t o prevent f r a u d , i t s h a l l n o t b e permitted t o work fraud."' I n t h e world of b u s i n e s s t r a n s a c t i o n s , t h e i n j u s t i c e s r e s u l t i n g from a l i t e r a l , r i g i d a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s have caused c o u r t s , l e g i s l a t o r s and s c h o l a r s t o reshape and d e f i n e t h e statute. Two of t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s developed a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o the i n s t a n t case. One was developed by t h e l e g a l s c h o l a r s and enacted by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ; t h e o t h e r was developed by t h e c o u r t s . The two q u a l i f i c a t i o n s have two t h i n g s i n common: 1) A r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e law should r e q u i r e some w r i t i n g exchanged between t h e p a r t i e s which s e t s f o r t h t h e i r agreement; and 2) A requirement t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p and c o u r s e of d e a l i n g s between t h e p a r t i e s j u s t i f i e s one p a r t y ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h e o t h e r has consented t o t h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t , even though he h a s n o t signed i t . When t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e found t o e x i s t , t h e c o n t r a c t may be enforced. The b e n e f i c i a l purposes of t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s a r e preserved---the dangers of mistake o r f r a u d a r e averted--- and t h e ends of j u s t i c e a r e served. Under s e c t i o n 87A-2-201, R.C.M. 1947, t h e q u e s t i o n of whether o r n o t Wilson i s a merchant w i t h i n t h e meaning o f t h e s t a t u t e , w i l l n o t be considered h e r e f o r i t i s obvious t h a t o t h e r requirements of t h e s t a t u t e a r e met. Evidence of confirmation o f t h e two con- tracts is: 1) They were given Wilson It w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time", a few days f o l l o w i n g t h e o r a l agreement and on t h e n e x t time Wilson v i s i t e d the elevator. 2) The agreements were II s u f f i c i e n t a g a i n s t the sender" i n t h a t t h e y were complete a s t o a l l d e t a i l s and signed by Warren on b e h a l f of C a r g i l l . 3) contents" They were r e c e i v e d by one "who had reason t o know i t s --- Wilson admitted t h e p r i o r o r a l agreement and t h a t he had r e a d t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e c o n t r a c t s when he r e c e i v e d them. 4) He d i d n o t o b j e c t "within t e n days" a f t e r r e c e i p t of t h e c o n t r a c t s , n o r even w i t h i n f o u r months. W f i n d t h e requirement of a signed w r i t i n g was met w i t h t h e e i n t e r c h a n g e of t h e documents between t h e p a r t i e s . The g e n e r a l law on t h e s u b j e c t i s s e t f o r t h i n Restatement of C o n t r a c t s 9 208: ''9 208. WHEN SEVERAL WRITINGS CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT MElOP&NDUM. 1I The memorandum may c o n s i s t of s e v e r a l writings, *** "(b) though one w r i t i n g only i s signed i f " ( i ) t h e signed w r i t i n g i s p h y s i c a l l y annexed t o t h e o t h e r w r i t i n g by t h e p a r t y t o be charged, o r " ( i i ) t h e signed w r i t i n g r e f e r s t o t h e unsigned w r i t i n g , o r 11 ( i i i ) i t appears from examination of a l l t h e w r i t i n g s t h a t t h e signed w r i t i n g was signed w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e unsigned w r i t i n g s . II Here, Wilson admits he was handed c o n t r a c t s numbered 86027 and 86028 and t h a t he d i d n o t then nor l a t e r o b j e c t t o t h e i r c o n t e n t s . Within a few days t h e r e a f t e r , he asked f o r and r e c e i v e d an advance payment of $10,000. The memorandum given t o him, t o which t h e $10,000 check was a t t a c h e d , i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e e a r l i e r c o n t r a c t s by r e f e r r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e i r numbers. The numbered c o n t r a c t s d i d c o n t a i n a l l of t h e e s s e n t i a l elements of a c o n t r a c t ; t h e l a t e r memorandum i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e s e documents by s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r numbers. Wilson accepted t h i s memorandum, a g a i n without any o b j e c t i o n a s t o i t s c o n t e n t s , and he took t h e f u r t h e r s t e p of s i g n i n g h i s name t o t h e check which was a t t a c h e d . When he d i d t h i s , he e i t h e r signed a s u f f i c i e n t memorandum of an e a r l i e r o r a l c o n t r a c t , o r he accepted an o f f e r which had been made by C a r g i l l when i t s agent handed him t h e w r i t t e n numbered c o n t r a c t s . Research does n o t d i s c l o s e any c a s e s s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t a n t one, however, we d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n t o Leach v. C r u c i b l e Center Company, ( 1 s t C i r . 1968), 388 F.2d 176, where t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f a p p e a l s found t h a t a check and a r e c e i p t f o r t h e check which were exhan5ed on August 4, 1965, and each of which d e s c r i b e d t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e agreed s a l e s p r i c e , f i x e d t h e d a t e of a binding t r a n s a c t i o n a s August 4 , even though a d e t a i l e d s a l e s agreement and a signed s t a t e m e n t t h a t an o f f e r had been accepted were n o t submitted t o t h e purchaser u n t i l a day l a t e r . Higby v. Hooper, 124 Mont. 331, 221 P.2d 1043, although n o t c l o s e l y i n p o i n t , i s a c a s e where a p a r t y was bound t o t h e terms of a previous o r a l c o n t r a c t f o r b u i l d i n g a house by h i s s i g n a t u r e on a l e t t e r t o a l e n d i n g agency which r e f e r r e d t o p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s e t f o r t h on o t h e r p i e c e s of paper. Johnson v. E l l i o t , 123 Mont. 597, 218 P.2d 703; Johnson v. Ogle, 120 Mont. 176, 181 P.2d 789; Gantt v. Harper, 86 Mont. 69, 281 P. 915. The Uniform Commercial Code, s e c t i o n s 87A-2-204, 87A-2-205 1947, r e a d : and 87A-2-206, R.C.M. "87A-2-204. Formation i n g e n e r a l . (1) A c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e of goods may be made i n any manner s u E c i e n t t o show agreement, i n c l u d i n g conduct by b o t h p a r t i e s which recognizes t h e e x i s t ence of such a c o n t r a c t . I' (2) An agreement s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e may b e found even though t h e moment of i t s making i s unde termined . 11 (3) Even though one o r more terms a r e l e f t open a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e does n o t f a i l f o r i n d e f i n i t e n e s s i f t h e p a r t i e s have intended t o make a c o n t r a c t and t h e r e i s a reasonably c e r t a i n b a s i s f o r g i v i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e remedy. 'l "87A-2-205. Firm o f f e r s . An o f f e r by a merchant t o buy o r s e l l goods i n a s i g n e d w r i t i n g which by i t s terms g i v e s a s s u r a n c e t h a t i t w i l l b e h e l d open i s n o t r e v o c a b l e , f o r l a c k of c o n s i d e r a t i o n , d u r i n g t h e time s t a t e d o r i f no time i s s t a t e d f o r a r e a s o n a b l e time, b u t i n no event may such p e r i o d of i r r e v o c a b i l i t y exceed t h r e e months; b u t any such term of a s s u r a n c e on a form s u p p l i e d by t h e o f f e r e e must be s p e a r a t e l y signed by t h e o f f e r o r . " "87A-2-206. O f f e r and acceptance i n formation o f c o n t r a c t . (1) Unless o t h e r w i s e unambiguously i n d i c a t e d by t h e language o r circumstances " ( a ) an o f f e r t o make a c o n t r a c t s h a l l be construed a s i n v i t i n g acceptance i n any manner and by any medium r e a s o n a b l e i n t h e circumstances k ; * *." S e c t i o n 87A-2-204(2) i s d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y t o t h e s i t u a t i o n where t h e interchanged correspondence does n o t d i s c l o s e t h e e x a c t p o i n t a t which t h e d e a l was c l o s e d , b u t t h e a c t i o m o f t h e p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t a b i n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n has been undertaken. 87A-2-205, Under s e c t i o n t h e signed copy o f t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t Warren gave Wilson was a t l e a s t binding upon C a r g i l l a s an o f f e r , and Wilson's subsequent conduct w i t h r e s p e c t t h e r e t o may be found t o be an acceptance w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 87A-2-206, R.C.M. 1947. The :problem i s thoroughly considered i n 3 ~ e n d e r ' sUniform ommercial Code S e r v i c e , 5 2 . 0 4 ( 2 ) , pp. 2-51 through 2-55: "A more troublesome problem I n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e form r e q u i r e d of a w r i t i n g f o r i t t o meet t h e t e s t o f a memorandum a r i s e s i n connection w i t h s e p a r a t e p i e c e s of paper, none of which a l o n e i s s u f f i c i e n t , b u t a l l of which, when taken t o g e t h e r , would q u a l i f y . What i s r e q u i r e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e p a s t w r i t i n g s ? What i s n e c e s s a r y t o permit a r e a d i n g t o g e t h e r of s e v e r a l w r i t i n g s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s i n g l e memorandum? IF T h i s problem was c l e a r l y presented i n a well-known c a s e i n which a p r i n t e d form c o n t a i n i n g a l l t h e essent i a l terms of t h e b a r g a i n had been completed, except f o r t h e s i g n a t u r e of e i t h e r p a r t y . About s i x months l a t e r , t h e defendant-buyer wrote t o t h e s e l l e r , a s k i n g him t o I p l e a s e c a n c e l m o r d e r , I and signed t h e l e t t e r . y The c o u r t s t a t e d t h e r u l e of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n i t s c l a s s i c . form: " ' I n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e requirements o f [ t h e s t a t u t e ] , t h e n o t e o r memorandum may c o n s i s t of s e v e r a l writings,though t h e w r i t i n g containing t h e r e q u i s i t e terms i s unsigned, i f i t appears from an examination of a l l t h e w r i t i n g s t h a t t h e w r i t i n g which i s signed by t h e p a r t y t o b e charged was signed w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n t h a t i t r e f e r t o t h e unsigned w r i t i n g , and t h a t t h e w r i t i n g s a r e s o connected by i n t e r n a l r e f e r e n c e i n t h e signed memorandum t o t h e unsigned one, t h a t they may b e s a i d t o c o n s t i t u t e one paper r e l a t i n g t o t h e c o n t r a c t . 1 "As a p p l i e d t o t h e c a s e , t h i s s t a t e m e n t of t h e r u l e was n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d i s p o s i t i v e of t h e i s s u e . The l a t e r w r i t i n g contained a r e f e r e n c e t o an o r d e r , b u t t h e o r d e r t o which i t r e f e r r e d was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d . Obviously, an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a s by number, would make a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r u l e r e l a t i v e l y easy. But t h e word ' o r d e r ' of i t s e l f could r e f e r t o t h e p r i o r w r i t i n g cons t i t u t i n g a purchase o r d e r , o r i t could r e f e r t o a n o t h e r o r a l communication. It i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e signed w r i t i n g i n t e n t i o n a l l y r e f e r t o t h e p r i o r unsigned w r i t i n g which c o n t a i n s t h e e s s e n t i a l terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , b u t i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e be i n t e r n a l t o t h e w r i t i n g which i s signed. The r e f e r e n c e must be t o t h e w r i t i n g , and n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t o t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . I n d i s p o s i n g of t h e c a s e , t h e c o u r t s a i d : I1 I I f t h e signed memorandum makes no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e unsigned memorandum, they may n o t be r e a d t o g e t h e r . P a r o l evidence i s i n a d m i s s i b l e t o connect them Here, we have n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p o s t a l c a r d r e f e r s t o an e x t r i n s i c w r i t i n g . I t does n o t i d e n t i f y t h e unsigned w r i t t e n memorandum : 9 : n o r does i t i d e n t i f y 9 : *. To conclude otherwise would be any of i t s terms 9 t o s u b v e r t t h e s p i r i t of t h e s t a t u t e . I t I This i s t h e g e n e r a l l y accepted view, though a d m i t t e d l y i t i s a f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n between a r e f e r e n c e which i s t o t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n and one which i s t o a n o t h e r paper. The r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o t h e r paper must b e contained i n t h e signed w r i t i n g , whereas t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n t o which s e v e r a l w r i t i n g s r e f e r i s t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n i s a m a t t e r which may be shown by p a r o l evidence. Though p a r o l evidence i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o supply t h e r e f e r e n c e , i t i s a d m i s s i b l e t o * * *. * c o n s t r u e words f o r purposes of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e i n t e r n a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n by t h e s i g n e d w r i t i n g . The i n t e r n a l e v i dence of a common s u b j e c t m a t t e r may be s u f f i c i e n t t o make t h e connection. Because of t h e s u b j e c t i v i t y of t h e rules i n t h i s area, i t i s not surprising that the cases from j u r i s d i c t i o n t o j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e n o t i n complete a c c o r d , and t h e Code makes no a t t e m p t t o s e t t l e t h e uncertainty. I n view of t h e widespread d i s p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s n o t always used t o p r e v e n t f r a u d , b u t may be an i n s t r u m e n t of i t s p e r p e t r a t i o n , t h e admonition of Judge Cardozo t h a t t h e s t a u t e should n o t be p r e s s e d t o t h e extreme of a l i t e r a l and r i g i d l o g i c , should be k e p t i n mind. "In s e v e r a l of t h e c a s e s j u s t r e f e r r e d t o , t h e w r i t i n g s were n e g a t i v e i n c h a r a c t e r ; t h e y were a t t e m p t e d c a n c e l l a c i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n p o s i t i v e memoranda of an e x i s t i n g c o n t r a c t . That such documents may s a t i s f y t h e s t a t u t e i s n o t i n q u e s t i o n , f o r i t i s n o t t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e document t h a t i s i m p o r t a n t , b u t r a t h e r i t s i n t e r n a l e v i d e n c i n g of a c o n t r a c t . Thus, a n e g a t i v e w r i t i n g a l o n e , o r coupled w i t h a p r i o r unsigned w r i t i n g , may c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t memorandum. I I (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W Concur: e " .* -d---------'------------r----------,- Chief J u s t i c e ....................................... Justices. Mr. J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell: I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.