Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Re: Personal Property Sale vs. Commercial sales

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and if you believe they cannot prove the elements of their case, the only way to get that point across in court is to defend and answer the complaint and go forward to trial and possibly try to get a summary judgment before trial. Incidentally, payment made to you is a "record" of the transaction--they do not need a written contract or your signature.

Re: Personal Property Sale vs. Commercial sales

You may have valid defenses, that if properly presented will prevent plaintiff from getting a judgment against you. You may have grounds for various pre-trial motions such as demurrer, motion to strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings, etc. Your problem is in thinking that sympathetic 'handy hints' from LawGuru are somehow going to do the trick. Unless you know how to effectively deal with court pleadings requirements, pre-trial and trial procedures, evidence rules, etc., those hints won't do you any good. You can't waive a print out of the hints at the judge. Unless you know how to function as a lawyer, going up against a lawyer out to get judgement against you, you need a real one. I recognize the problem is one of expense - $12k claim vs cost of legal fees. Regardless, the best advice is to get an attorney to help you, quickly. If the case is in SoCal, feel free to contact me.

Re: Personal Property Sale vs. Commercial sales

There is no Civil Code section 1624.5. There was a Civil Code section 1624a, but that was repealed in 1963, and the repeal became effective in 1965. That was before we allegedly walked on the moon.

The provision that you are referring to comes from what is known as the Statute of Frauds. The specific section that you are referring to was in the English statute in 1677. The provision you speak of refers to contracts for the sale of goods in excess of $500.00. This was in UCC section 2-201.

The section you refer to is actually codified now at Commercial Code section 2201.

If you do have this defense, you may be able to assert it by way of demurrer. I would have to look at the complaint and the exact statute to tell you whether or not this applies.

There are a number of exceptions to the statute of frauds, chiefly estoppel and what is known as a fully executed oral contract. These provisions tend to mystify some lawyers, and judges do not like someone asserting the statute of frauds to get out of an actual contract that they got into. (In other words, no judge in his or her right mind is going to let you keep the money if you ripped someone off, regardless of whether your contract was in writing or not.)

You may want to speak to an attorney about your case, before you get into hot water with any preconceived ideas. I would be candid with the attorney, because anything you "forget" to tell him, the other side will be more than happy to bring out later.

Very truly yours,