Contracts
Palokous v. International Chevrolet CO.
Court: Idaho (1978) Names: Facts: Mr. Paloukos (P) went to the intermountain Chevrolet dealer to purchase a truck. He met with a sales associate and they agreed on eth sale of a truck. The saleman printed a form and he and the (P) filled it out and was signed by (P). This form was a work sheet and stated that it is not a purchase order. The (P) placed a deposit for the truck while it was being retrieved by the dealer. 5 months later the dealer informed the (P) they could not produce the truck and the deal was off. Rules: Chp. 2 of the UCC 28-2-204: FORMATION IN GENEARAL –(1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a conduct. (2) Even though one or more terms is left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonable certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy. Issues: Was a contract formed with the dealer despite the work sheet stating that it was not a “purchase order”? Holding: ruled in favor of (P) Reasoning: they did have a contract because each party acted as if they did. Just because the order form did not say everything that the buyer wanted does not mean that it was not a sale.