Story Case

Mr. Deever, an old English gentleman, ordered a pair of false teeth from a London dentist and agreed to pay eleven pounds for them after three months. The dentist took his measurements, made the set, delivered it, and, after three months, sued Mr. Deever for the price.

Mr. Deever answered that the Statute of Frauds, which says that"no action shall be brought on a promise to pay for goods the price of ten pounds or more unless an earnest sum be given to bind the contract or the goods be delivered, or the promise be in writing", afforded him a good defense to the action.

The dentist answered: (1) That the set of teeth, especially made for Mr. Deever, was not "goods" within the meaning of the statute, and (2) That Mr. Deever had received the teeth. Is this defense a good one? Must Mr. Deever pay for the set of teeth?

Ruling Court Case. Goddard Vs. Binney, Volume 115 Massachusetts Reports, Page 450; Volume 15 American Reports, Page 112

Goddard was a carriage manufacturer, engaged in business in the city of Boston. Binney went to him, at his place of business, and directed Goddard to make for him a buggy. This order Goddard entered in his order book. Binney directed that the color of the lining should be drab. He wished the seat to be made of cane; he told him just how he desired it to be painted and requested that his monogram and initials be placed on the side of the body of the buggy. Binney promised to pay Goddard $675 for the buggy when it was completed. When Goddard had completed the work, in accordance with the directions given him, he notified Binney to come after it. Binney refused to take it; this action was brought for the price thereof.

In defense of the action, Binney pleaded that section of the Statute of Frauds which provides:"No contract for the sale of personal property, for the price of fifty dollars or more, shall be valid, unless the buyer accepts and receives the goods, or the contract be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith".

The plaintiff, however, contended that this was not a contract for the sale of personal property but that it was a contract for work and labor to be performed by him for Binney and therefore the agreement was not within the Statute of Frauds, as contended by Binney.

Decision

The court was of the opinion that this was not a contract for the sale of personal property but that it was an agreement for work and labor to be performed by Goddard for Binney. Such being the case, the agreement was not within the section of the Statute of Frauds mentioned, as contended by the defendant, Binney.

Mr. Justice Ames, who delivered the opinion of the court, said in part:"A contract for the sale of articles then existing, or such as the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether on hand at the time or not, is a contract for the sale of goods to which the statute applies. But on the other hand, if the goods are to be manufactured especially for the purchaser - as in this case - and upon his special order, and not for the general market, the contract is not within the statute".

Accordingly, it was held that Goddard might recover the $675 of Binney.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The Statute of Frauds, adopted in all states provides substantially:

"No contract for the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise, for the price of ten pounds sterling, or upwards, shall be allowed to be good, except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged or their agents thereunto authorized".

The amount or purchase price, which will render the agreement unenforcible unless in writing, varies in the different states. It ranges from thirty-five dollars to two hundred.

It is often a difficult question to determine whether a given agreement is a contract of sale or a contract for work and labor. If the agreement has to do with goods then existing, or such goods as a seller usually sells, manufactures or procures for the general market, whether he has them at the time or not, the agreement comes within this section of the statute. But if he agrees to manufacture goods especially for a person, and not for the general market, the agreement is considered as one for work and labor and not for the sale of personal property, and need not be in writing in order to be enforcible.

Thus, in the Story Case, a set of teeth fitted to the mouth of a single person is considered as work and labor and not as "goods, wares, and merchandise". But even considering the teeth as "goods" Mr. Deever must pay for them; for the statute applies only to goods not delivered and Mr. Deever had received the teeth. This fact takes the agreement out of the statute. Therefore, an action may be brought on the agreement.