Statute of Frauds. Monetti, S.P.A., is an Italian firm that makes decorative plastic trays and related products for the food services industry. In 1981, Monetti set up a wholly owned subsidiary, Melform U.S.A., to market its products in the United

Question

States. In 1984, after orally agreeing with Anchor Hocking Corp (Anchor) that Anchor would become the exclusive U.S. distributor of Monetti products, Monetti terminated all of Melform's current distributors and informed all of Melform's customers that Anchor would be the exclusive distributor of its products in the future. Relations between Monetti and Anchor Hocking deteriorated over the next several months, and eventually Monetti sued for breach of contract. Anchor contended that their contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Although their agreement had never been reduced to a writing, at one point Raymond Davis, the marketing director of Anchor, summarized the terms of the agreement in a memorandum on Anchor's letterhead that was sent to Anchor's law department. The memo included some handwritten notes by Davis, which, Davis stated, represented "more clearly our current position regarding the agreement." Will the memorandum signed by Davis constitute a sufficient writing under the UCC Statute of Frauds provisions? Discuss.

Answer 1

Statute of Frauds
The court held that the Davis memorandum constituted a sufficient writing to satisfy the UCC Statute of Frauds provision. The court acknowledged that the memorandum did not contain all the terms of the contract. But "[r]emember that the UCC's statute of frauds does not require that the contract be in writing, but only that there be a sufficient memorandum to indicate that there really was a contract. The Davis memorandum fits this requirement to a t."