Anderson, who had sold corn on three other occasions, contacted Harvest States Cooperatives in August of 1995 to ask about the potential sale of 5000 bushels of corn that Anderson was to harvest. Harvest sent Anderson a contract for the sale, but Anderson did not sign nor return the contract because he believed he had the right to reject the contract. Harvest replaced the corn that Anderson was supposed to sell them for $1 more per bushel than they were going to pay Anderson and sued Anderson for the difference, a total of $5000. Anderson claimed that the statute of frauds required that a contract be signed, while the trial court stated that because it was a transaction between merchants, the contract did not need to be signed.

The issue at hand is whether or not Anderson was a merchant. If this is a case between two merchants, the Uniform Commercial Code sets the precedent. The Uniform Commercial Code states that contracts between merchants do not need to be signed and that the receipt of a contract is enough to be legally binding. The UCC defines a merchant who has special knowledge or skill of some practice relating to the goods being exchanged. This rule helps distinguish “professionals from a casual or inexperienced seller.”

Ultimately, Anderson was not found to be a merchant, and thus, was not bound by the sale confirmation contract Harvest had sent. While Anderson was a person engaging in commerce, there are many pieces of evidence that show that Anderson was a novice and did not have “skill peculiar to the practices” of selling corn. Anderson, by is own word, did not own a farm and grew corn for the purpose of feeding his livestock. While Anderson had sold corn before, it was only on three other occasions. On all three of those occasions he sold small quantities of corn to a local scale by simply driving up and selling on the spot without a contract.