Quincy Park District v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Quincy Park District v. State

37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266, 1985 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 20

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 25, 1985

DocketNo. 84-CC-0339

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266 (Quincy Park District v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quincy Park District v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266, 1985 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 20 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Holderman, J.

This cause having come for consideration on the Respondent’s motion to file affirmative defenses instanter and the Court being duly advised in the premises:

Finds, that the price of the tramway, which Respondent allegedly orally contracted to buy, exceeds $500.00. The said tramway is a “good” within the definition of “goods” provided by the Uniform Commercial Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 26, par. 2— 105.) A contract of the sale of goods for a price exceeding $500.00 is unenforceable without a writing evidencing the alleged contract and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 26, par. 2 — 201(1).

It is hereby ordered, that Claimant’s complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 26, par. 2 — 201(1).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holderman, J.

This cause having come for consideration on the Respondent’s motion to file affirmative defenses instanter and the Court being duly advised in the premises:

Finds, that the price of the tramway, which Respondent allegedly orally contracted to buy, exceeds $500.00. The said tramway is a “good” within the definition of “goods” provided by the Uniform Commercial Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 26, par. 2— 105.) A contract of the sale of goods for a price exceeding $500.00 is unenforceable without a writing evidencing the alleged contract and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 26, par. 2 — 201(1).

It is hereby ordered, that Claimant’s complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 26, par. 2 — 201(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266, 1985 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quincy-park-district-v-state-ilclaimsct-1985.