One of the "underlying purposes [of the Uniform Commercial Code is] . . . to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions." As a general rule courts of the forty-nine states which have adopted the Code have achieved uniformity in their interpretation and application of Code provisions. Courts of the various jurisdictions, however, have reached inconsistent results in the determination of whether a farmer is a merchant within the meaning of the Code. As indicated by Currituck Grain, Inc. v. Powell, the North Carolina Court of Appeals is in accord with five other state courts and three federal courts in holding that a farmer may be a merchant for purposes of the statute of frauds provision of the Code. Section 2-201 bars a merchant-seller from raising the statute of frauds as a defense in an action based on an oral sales contract if he has received a written confirmation of the contract from the merchant-buyer within a reasonable time and has failed to object in writing to the confirmation within ten days. This note briefly examines approaches of other courts to the issue of the farmer as a merchant and the impact and potential scope of the Currituck Grain decision.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.