Gonzalez Manufacturing negotiated by telephone to purchase approximately $7,000
worth of digital video recorders from Video Imports. The final details were worked out
by telephone calls on April 2nd. On April 4th, Video sent Gonzalez a confirmation of
their telephone agreement, which included pertinent details. Meanwhile, on April 3rd,
Gonzalez was offered a better deal than Video’s and accepted it. Upon arrival of the
confirmation on April 6th, Gonzalez ignored it and did nothing further until May 1st,
the date before Video was to deliver. On May 1st, Gonzalez informed Video that their
contract was an unenforceable oral contract and that delivery would not be accepted.
When attempts to amicably settle the matter failed, Video sued Gonzalez for breach of
contract. Decide.
Newlog, which had developed a new process for making artificial logs, entered into an
oral contract with Specialty Manufacturing. The contract provided that Specialty would
manufacture a special part that Newlog needed to make its artificial log machinery. The
contract provided that Specialty would make the part to Newlog’s specifications.
Newlog orally agreed to pay $5,000 for the part. Specialty made the part to Newlog’s
specifications, but Newlog refused to pay, claiming that the oral contract was
unenforceable because of the statute of frauds. Is Newlog correct?