In the Case of Randy Rolek vs. Wally of “Windy City Watches,” Randy is suing Wally in Federal District Court for failure to complete the terms of agreement for which Randy signed to purchase 100 Rolek watches from Wally, under the UCC Statute of Frauds.

Under the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, can Randy Rolek, of Milwaukee WI, sue Wally of “Windy City Watches,” in Chicago IL for not following through with their agreement? Is the contract irrelevant because it was not reduced to UCC Statute of Frauds?

According to Section 2 of the UCC Statute of Frauds, Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

In reference to the above paragraph, a contract for the purchase of 100 watches was drafted by Randy Rolek and sent to Wally of “Windy City Watches,” In which Wally signed making the contract complete. Wally states that he should not be held accountable, but UCC Statute of Frauds states specifically, “$500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker.” Considering that the contract signed was for the purchase of 100 watches at $25 per watch, this puts the total due at $2500, making the contract valid.

In