American Iron Metal Co. v. U.S. Ferrous Trading Division, Tube City Division
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
2007 WL 1125682 (2007)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
American Iron Metal Company, Inc. (AIM) was in the business of selling scrap metal. U.S. Ferrous Trading Division, Tube City Division (Tube City) was in the business of reselling scrap metal to third parties. The two companies’ top managers held discussions in which they verbally agreed that, for a price of $305 per metric ton, AIM would sell 35,000 metric tons of scrap metal to Tube City, which would then resell the metal to an Egyptian company. The Egyptians later broke off their talks with Tube City, and AIM had to sell its scrap metal at a loss. AIM sued Tube City in federal district court under Connecticut’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The only written evidence of any contract between AIM and Tube City were two emails that Tube City’s manager sent his AIM counterpart following their verbal discussions. The emails described the agreed sale and purchase of “about 30–35,000” tons of scrap for resale to an Egyptian buyer but omitted other points covered in the discussions. Tube City moved to dismiss on the grounds that the emails failed to satisfy the UCC’s statute of frauds in that the emails failed to (1) identify the parties to the contract, (2) describe the method and terms of payment, or (3) indicate that the parties had finalized their agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dorsey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.