Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.

• 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

• 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

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

1. Short supply, great demand of care created the proper circumstance as well → it could not be recreated without considerable expense, delay, and inconvenience
2. Failure to specify an exact selling price does not render the contract voidable
3. 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
4. Ps had no adequate remedy at law and were entitled to specific performance