Case Study

Rush Johnson Farms, Inc., v. Missouri Farmers Association, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Missouri,

Kansas City District, August 8, 1977

Procedural history

There are no holdings of any previous courts and disposition of this case by such court, as this is the first time this specific case had been brought to the appellate court within Missouri to review this law.

Facts

Rush Johnson Farms, Inc. was suing Missouri Farmers Association, Inc., (MFA) in the amount $4,094.60, which Johnson states is the amount owed by MFA for the delivery of its product (soybeans). MFA defended that there was a contract for 6,000 bushels to be delivered and Johnson fell short, thus the monetary figure withheld if damages suffered by MFA. Johnson contends there was no contract because the agreement was oral and under § 400.2-201 could not be proven because it involved more than $500 and was not in writing signed by him. MFA stated on the contrary that an oral contract is admissible in this case because under subsection § 400.2-201 within the UCC Johnson was considered a “merchant”.

Issue

Was oral agreement by Johnson to provide 6,000 bushels considered a contract?

Is Johnson, as a farmer under these circumstances considered a “merchant”?

Answer/Holding

Due to the fact that Johnson was considered a merchant, his agreement to provide the 6,000 bushels was considered a binding contract. The facts presented and were determined that Johnson’s previous dealings in this field were considered applicable to having the knowledge and skills required to be defined as a “merchant”.

Reasoning

The court arrived at this decision from section 400.2-105 which defines the word “goods” as in § 400.2-201 to include “the unborn young of animals and growing crops.” Section 400.2-104 defines “merchant” as: . . a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to...