Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D grows, and P buys and resells, millet, a grain used for, among other things, birdfeed. D and P have transacted business in the past on numerous occasions. On May 30, 2002, they discussed a forward contract for 15,000 bushels of millet. D wanted $5 per hundredweight. P said that price was not then available. Even so, four days later, relying on D's offer, P sold the millet to a buyer at a rate sufficient to meet D's price. P tried to reach D by telephone to inform him of the sale. On June 27, 2002, P spoke with D and mailed him a written and signed purchase contract. D did not check his mail and never signed or returned the purchase contract. At harvest, the market price of millet had trebled. D delivered to a grain operator in Paoli. P sued D for monetary damages, based on claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. The trial court held that D had entered into and breached an enforceable contract to sell 15,000 bushels of millet at $5 per hundredweight of product and P was entitled to recover $82,500 in damages. D appealed. D asserts that under 2-101 he could not be bound to a contract based only on his oral offer to sell; that P's contracting to sell the millet to a third party did not constitute an acceptance of his offer; and if a contract was entered into, it was not enforceable because it was not in writing and signed by both parties.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.