Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Case: Rapoca Energy Company, L.P. v AMCI Export Corporation, ,2001 WL 401424 United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, 2001 Facts: Robert

Case: Rapoca Energy Company, L.P. v AMCI Export Corporation, ,2001 WL 401424 United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, 2001 Facts: Robert Moir, an AMCI executive, met with Rapocas officer, Gary Chilcot, at OCharleys Restaurant, and discussed buying a large quantity of coal from Rapoca. According to AMCI, the two agreed that Rapoca would sell 140,000 tons of coal. AMCI confirmed this in two purchase orders (P.O.s), which it sent to Rapoca. Rapocas version was very different. Chilcot stated that the parties never reached an oral agreement, that the P.O.s were inconsistent as to the quantity of coal, and that the price was too low for a reasonable seller to have agreed. What is clear is that Rapoca did not respond in writing to the P.O.s for several months. Rapoca filed suit, seeking a declaration from the court that it had no contractual obligation to AMCI. The company argued that there had been no agreement, and that even if the parties had orally agreed, the P.O.s did not satisfy the statute of frauds. AMCI counterclaimed, seeking damages for its costs in buying coal elsewhere. The judge first ruled that the parties had in fact reached an oral agreement. That left one important issue remaining. Issues: Did the purchase orders satisfy the statute of frauds?

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Students also viewed these Finance questions