Final answer:
The legal issue revolves around whether the oral modification to the delivery date of goods in a contract is binding. Acme's contention that the new agreed-upon date is not binding is likely incorrect if both parties agreed to the change and acted upon it before reliance on the original terms, despite the Statute of Frauds potentially requiring written contracts for the sale of goods over $500.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject of the question is a legal issue concerning a contract for the sale of goods between a buyer and a seller. The facts describe a scenario in which a delivery date for goods was agreed upon orally, then subsequently modified by mutual agreement, following with a failure to deliver on the revised date. The core question is whether the revised delivery date is legally binding.
The contention by Acme that the agreement to change the delivery date to June 2 was not binding could be incorrect on the basis that oral modifications to a contract can be legally binding if both parties agree to the modification and the modification is executed before any reliance on the original contract terms. However, under the Statute of Frauds, because the sale was for goods totaling more than $500, the original contract itself should have been in writing to be enforceable unless an exception applies. This requirement can potentially apply to modifications as well.
It is also noteworthy that, depending on the jurisdiction and specific laws that apply, different outcomes could occur. For instance, certain jurisdictions have specific provisions regarding oral contracts and modifications for the sale of goods which can influence the binding nature of Acme's verbal agreement to the revised delivery date.