Quaney v. Tobyne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he exception to the statute of frauds contained in K.S.A. 84-2-201(3)(b) is satisfied when the party who has denied the existence of an oral contract in reliance on the statute takes the stand and, without admitting explicitly that a contract was made, testifies as to his statements or his actions which establish the terms of the oral contract claimed by the opposing party. It is not necessary that there be an express declaration in which the party admits the making of the oral contract. It is sufficient if his words or admitted conduct reasonably lead to that conclusion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg · 27 Kan. App. 2d 18 - St. Francis Mercantile Equity Exchange, Inc. v. Newton

2. “Under subsection (1) of the statute an oral contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable unless one of the exceptions under subsection (3) is satisfied. It is agreed that the exceptions contained in subsection (3)(a) and (c) are not applicable, and that plaintiffs must rely solely on section (3)(b) in order to avoid the application of the statute. The issue of law presented is whether, on the record before us, the defendant, as the party against whom enforcement of the oral contract is sought, admitted in his pleadings, testimony, or otherwise in court that an oral contract for sale was made. * * * * * * In order to come within the terms of the exceptions stated in 84r-2-201(3)(b), a statement must in fact constitute an admission ... * * * sis The question of what constitutes an admission under U.C.C. § 2-201(3)(b) is discussed in 2 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-201:216, pp. 116-17 (3rd ed. 1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract. It is not necessary that there be an express declaration that the party ‘admits’ the making of an oral‘contract.’ It is sufficient that his words or conduct reasonably lead to that conclusion. “When a party admits facts the legal consequence of which is that there is a contract, it is to be concluded that there has been an admission of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 923 F. Supp. 1322 - Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co.

3. “Formal requirements; statute of frauds. (1) 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.... * * * * ^ * (3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable * * * * * * (b) if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted!.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 923 F. Supp. 1322 - Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co.