Editing Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Missouri Court of Appeals
|citation=622 S.W.2d 694 (1981)
|date=1981
|subject=Contracts‎
|appealed_from=
|overturned=
|partially_overturned=
|reaffirmed=
|questioned=
|criticized=
|distinguished=
|cited=
|followed=
|related=
|facts=* Sedmak (P) owned 6 Corvettes → car enthusiasts
* Magazine article published in 1977 in which Chevy announced it was producing 6,000 ltd. Corvettes → P asked Tom Kells, manager of Charlie’s Chevy (D) about availability of the car
** Tom said he would check as he did not know, and if they were to receive one, P could purchase it
* January 1978, P puts $500 deposit on car → D gives receipt indicating such
** Special ordered with changes to stock options on car; confirmed and ordered by Kells 
* Kells informed P approx. price was $15k, but was not sure exactly due to P’s changes to stock model
** Said contract would be sent, but none ever was
* Late January 1978, no pace car still, allowed dealership to keep it in showroom until after Indy 500
* Car arrived in April, Kells said they had to bid on the car and the price was way up due to demand → P sued for specific performance
|procedural_history=* Trial Court decreed specific performance; denied D’s contention that contract price was indefinite and that contract was valid under Statute of Frauds due to the receipt given to P → D appealed
** Specific Performance lies within discretion of trial court → discretion is narrow; no adequate remedy at law for P due to uniqueness of car
|issues=Is P entitled to specific performance on the oral contract with Charlie’s?
|arguments=
|holding=SATZ: Yes.
|judgment=Affirmed.
|reasons=The nature of the appearance, mileage, and condition of the pace car fell within UCC 2-716(1) under “proper circumstance” as to grant specific performance
## Short supply, great demand of care created the proper circumstance as well → it could not be recreated without considerable expense, delay, and inconvenience
## Failure to specify an exact selling price does not render the contract voidable
## Because there was no dispute as to the quantity, part payment for a single indivisible commercial unit removed the oral contract from the Statute of Frauds
## Ps had no adequate remedy at law and were entitled to specific performance
|rule=
|comments=
|links=
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=
|written_by=Satz
|joined_by=
}}
}}