Printable Format84-1-206. Presumptions. Whenever the uniform commercial code creates a "presumption" with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is "presumed," the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence.
History: L. 2007, ch. 89, § 14; July 1, 2008.
KANSAS COMMENT, 1996
1. Subsection (1) is a statute of frauds applicable to contracts involving the sale of certain intangible personal property when the amount exceeds $5,000. Compare the statute of frauds in K.S.A. 33-106. "[T]he purpose of K.S.A. 84-1-206 is to include within its provisions sales of intangibles and choses-in-action which are not subject" to other statutes of frauds in the Code. See Decatur Coop. Ass'n v. Urban, 219 K. 171, 547 P.2d 323 (1976). The Official Comment identifies "typical" examples included within this section as the sale of bilateral contracts, royalty rights, and the like. This section's cross reference to Article 8 was amended in 1996 to reflect the amendment of Article 8 and stylistic changes.
2. Under this provision, as under 84-2-201, the writing need not contain all of the essential terms of the contract. Rather, it merely must indicate that a contract has been made, and contain a price term, the identity of the subject matter, and be signed by the party to be charged.
3. Subsection (2) excludes from this statute of frauds many types of contracts for the sale of personal property. Contracts for the sale of goods are covered by Article 2, which has its own statute of frauds. See 84-2-201; Decatur Co-op Ass'n v. Urban, supra. Contracts for the sale of investment securities are covered by Article 8 which has its own statute of frauds at 84-8-319. In addition, many sales of accounts and other intangibles will in fact be security agreements under Article 9. See 84-9-102 and 84-9-106. Finally, in Kansas no statute of frauds covers contracts for the sale of services. See Care Display, Inc. v. Didde-Glaser, Inc., 225 K. 232, 589 P.2d 599 (1979).
Revisor's Note:
Former section 84-1-206 was repealed by L. 2007, ch. 89, § 49 and the number reassigned to the current text.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Contracts: Interaction Between the Statute of Frauds and Promissory Estoppel in Kansas," Quentin E. Kurtz, 30 K.L.R. 332, 333 (1982).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Trial court erred in applying statute to oral sale of wheat; doctrine of promissory estoppel invoked. Decatur Cooperative Association v. Urban, 219 Kan. 171, 174, 175, 547 P.2d 323.
2. Contract held unenforceable although wrong statute relied on; summary judgment sustained. Mildfelt v. Lair, 221 Kan. 557, 561, 562, 564, 561 P.2d 805.
3. Cited; breach of good faith and fair dealing noted where supplier entered into contract by bribing manufacturer's employee. NL Industries, Inc. v. Gulf & Western Industries, 650 F. Supp. 1115, 1133 (1986).