Question

Syrovy and Alpine Resources, Inc., entered into a “Timber Purchase Agreement.” Syrovy agreed to sell and Alpine agreed to buy all of the timber produced during a two-year period. The timber to be sold, purchased, and delivered was to be produced by Alpine from timber on Syrovy’s land. Alpine continued harvesting for one year and then stopped after making an initial payment. Syrovy sued Alpine. Alpine alleged that there was no contract because the writing to satisfy the statute of frauds must contain a quantity term. Decide.

Answer 1

There is a valid contract between Syrovy and Alpine Resources, Inc. known as an output contract, even without a specific quantity term in the writing.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this case, the question is about whether there is a valid contract between Syrovy and Alpine Resources, Inc. According to the facts provided, Syrovy agreed to sell and Alpine agreed to buy all of the timber produced during a two-year period. However, Alpine stopped harvesting after one year. Alpine alleged that there was no contract because the writing to satisfy the statute of frauds must contain a quantity term.

The statute of frauds requires that certain contracts, including contracts for the sale of goods over a certain value, be in writing. However, some jurisdictions recognize an exception to the quantity term requirement, known as the output contract exception. An output contract is one where the seller agrees to sell all of the goods they produce, and the buyer agrees to buy all of the goods produced.

Based on the facts provided, it appears that Syrovy and Alpine entered into an output contract. Therefore, there is a valid contract between them, even without a specific quantity term in the writing. Syrovy may have a right to sue Alpine for breaching the contract by stopping harvesting before the end of the two-year period.