BarPrepPlay
Contracts sample analysis

MBE Contracts Statute of Frauds Merchant Confirmation Trap

Review a UCC merchant-confirmation fact pattern with examiner-style analysis on unsigned recipients, the 10-day objection rule, and goods priced at $500 or more.

Last reviewed April 22, 2026
Study format MBE sample analysis

On this page

Fact pattern

Harbor Kitchens, a restaurant-supply wholesaler, orally agreed on April 2 to sell 200 commercial mixers to Summit Cafes, a regional coffee-chain operator, for $1,200 each. Both sides regularly buy and sell kitchen equipment in their businesses. On April 3, Harbor emailed Summit a signed confirmation stating the quantity, price, and June delivery date. Summit's operations director read the email that same day and forwarded it internally, but Summit never signed anything and never sent any objection. Two weeks later, mixer prices spiked. Summit told Harbor that there was no enforceable contract because Summit had never signed a writing. Harbor sues for breach under UCC Article 2.

Quick answer

Yes. Harbor can enforce the contract against Summit because the signed merchant confirmation satisfied UCC Section 2-201 and Summit failed to object in writing within 10 days of receipt. Under UCC Section 2-201, a contract for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more is generally unenforceable unless there is a writing sufficient to indicate a contract for sale and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. But between merchants, a written confirmation that is sufficient against the sender and is received within a reasonable time binds the recipient as well unless the recipient gives written notice of objection within 10 days after receipt. To qualify, the confirmation must indicate a contract and state a quantity term. The merchant-confirmation exception therefore solves the signature problem for the recipient merchant if silence continues past the statutory objection window.

IRAC analysis

Issue

Can Harbor enforce the oral agreement against Summit under the UCC merchant-confirmation rule even though Summit never signed the confirmation?

Rule

Under UCC Section 2-201, a contract for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more is generally unenforceable unless there is a writing sufficient to indicate a contract for sale and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. But between merchants, a written confirmation that is sufficient against the sender and is received within a reasonable time binds the recipient as well unless the recipient gives written notice of objection within 10 days after receipt. To qualify, the confirmation must indicate a contract and state a quantity term. The merchant-confirmation exception therefore solves the signature problem for the recipient merchant if silence continues past the statutory objection window.

Application

The oral deal covered goods worth far more than $500, so Article 2's Statute of Frauds is implicated. Harbor has a signed writing sufficient against itself because its signed email states the quantity, price, and delivery timing…

Premium content

Full analysis is a premium unlock.

The fact pattern, quick answer, and citations are free to read. Upgrade to get the complete IRAC breakdown, wrong-answer analysis, reasoning steps, and quiz answers.

Full model answers Wrong-answer traps Reasoning walkthroughs Interactive quiz answers
Create free account

Already have an account? Log in

Primary law and source anchors

  • UCC Section 2-201(1) Contracts for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more generally require a signed writing with a quantity term.
  • UCC Section 2-201(2) Between merchants, a signed written confirmation binds the recipient unless a written objection is sent within 10 days.
  • UCC Section 2-104 Defines a merchant for Article 2 purposes.
  • Bazak International Corp. v. Mast Industries, Inc., 535 N.E.2d 633 (N.Y. 1989) A standard merchant-confirmation case emphasizing the writing and objection mechanics.