ORS 72.2010
Formal requirements: 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 the authorized agent or broker of the party. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this subsection beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.


Between merchants, if within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of subsection (1) of this section against such party unless written notice of objection to its contents is given within 10 days after it is received.


A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) of this section but which is valid in other respects is enforceable:


If the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement; or


If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in 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; or


With respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted in accordance with ORS 72.6060 (What constitutes acceptance of goods). [1961 c.726 §72.2010 (Formal requirements: statute of frauds)]

Notes of Decisions

The sale of goods was taken out of the statute of frauds by receipt and acceptance of the goods by plaintiff in accordance with ORS 72.6060. Gardner & Beedon Co. v. Cooke, 267 Or 7, 513 P2d 758 (1973)

Writing is sufficient to indicate that contract has been made if it affords basis for believing that offered oral evidence rests on real transaction. Tripp v. Pay `n Pak Stores, Inc., 268 Or 1, 518 P2d 1298 (1974)

Exclusive dealings contract was not void for failure to state quantity, for ORS 72.3060 provides "quantity" terms with respect to such contracts as matter of law. Kubik v. J & R Foods, 282 Or 179, 577 P2d 518 (1978)

Where seller signed agreement for sale of shop and office equipment and delivered equipment to purchaser and thereafter sought payment from corporation to whom purchaser's interest was transferred, seller treated transfer and sale as accomplished facts and transaction was out of statute of frauds. Bank of Wallowa v. Gary Mac, Inc., 49 Or App 403, 619 P2d 1310 (1980)

Promissory estoppel is available to avoid the defense of the Statute of Frauds by virtue of ORS 71.1030. Potter v. Hatter Farms, 56 Or App 254, 641 P2d 628 (1982)

Plaintiff's letter to defendant that by its own terms described no underlying oral agreement was not sufficient as writing in confirmation of oral agreement to take alleged agreement out of Statute of Frauds. Pacific Inland Navigation v. Riedel International, 101 Or App 575, 792 P2d 443 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

This section merely addresses issue of statute of frauds, not issue of terms of contract. Pacific Western Resin Co. v. Condux Pipe Systems, Inc., 771 F Supp 313 (1991)

Attachment of "sign and return" clause does not rule out document as being order confirmation. GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 133 Or App 633, 894 P2d 470 (1995), aff'd323 Or 116, 914 P2d 682 (1996)

Law Review Citations

28 WLR 565 (1992)

Chapter 72

Law Review Citations

53 OLR 468-473 (1974); 58 OLR 545 (1980)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021