Buffaloe v. Hart North Carolina Court of Appeals 1994 1) Facts: a) Plaintiff in 1988 and 1989 rented five barns from tem for use b) After agreeing with a handshake, the plaintiff contemplated buying them c) He offered 20,000 dollars for the five barns over the course of 4 years with a yearly payment of 5,000 d) The defendants agreed to deal e) After the plaintiffs loan fell through to buy them outright he listed them for sale in the paper f) The defendant called and asked what was going on and the plaintiff responded he would sell the barns and she said that was ok g) Defendant delivered the first check for 5,000 and defendant accepted h) The next night she called the plaintiff and told him they were not for sale and she had sold them to another party i) The defendant mailed his check back ripped into a ton of pieces. 2) Procedural History a) Parties i) Homer Buffaloe (1) Plaintiff ii) Patricia Hart and Lowell Hart (1) Defendant b) Claims i) Plaintiff argues that defendant breached contract ii) Defendant claims that there was not sufficient consideration under statute of frauds c) Procedural History i) Plaintiff files suit against defendants ii) Defendants file for a directed verdict which was denied iii) Trial court finds for plaintiff iv) Defendants filed a JNOV which was denied 3) Issues a) Is a personal check signed by plaintiff enough to constitute writing under statute of frauds i) Holding: A check needs to meet certain criteria to pass under the statute of frauds ii) Rule: UCC 25-2-105 iii) Application: Because the check lacked the criteria needed, mainly the lack of endorsement from the defendants, it is not legally enforceable under the statue of frauds b) Was their substantial evidence that plaintiff accepted and defendants accepted plaintiffs check there by passing statute of frauds? i) Holding: The actions by the plaintiff must be overt and demonstrate a contract was met ii) Application: Plaintiff went around selling the barns and had them listed in ads and auctions around town indicating he did believe they reached a contract 4) Judgment: The court did not err in denying defendants motions for directed verdict and JNOV