## Facts

- Janice and Bruce Ellig (plaintiffs) discussed buying a high-value diamond ring with Alfred Molina (defendant), an Arizona jeweler associated with Molina, Inc., doing business as Molina Fine Jewelers.
- During pre-sale discussions with Mr. Ellig, Molina represented that if the Elligs did not like the ring “for any reason,” they could return it within one year and he would buy it back for the purchase price plus 10%.
- Molina repeated the same buy-back guarantee in discussions with Mrs. Ellig.
- The buy-back guarantee was not put into writing at the time of the sale.
- The Elligs purchased the ring in June 2011 for more than $600,000.
- After the purchase, the ring required adjustments and was provided to the Elligs in completed form only after modifications.
- The Elligs were dissatisfied with the ring and, within one year of receiving it in final form, informed Molina that they were exercising the buy-back right.
- In July 2012, Molina sent Mr. Ellig a signed letter beginning “Dear Brother” that confirmed the purchase and referenced the buy-back guarantee, but stated Molina would need to resell the diamond before repaying the Elligs.
- The resale-first condition was not part of the oral agreement, and the Elligs did not agree to it.
- Molina did not repurchase the ring for the full price plus 10% within the agreed time; plaintiffs sued for breach of contract.
- After a bench trial, the court credited the Elligs’ testimony and found Molina’s account not reliable where it conflicted with plaintiffs’ version of the agreement.

## Issues

1. Did the parties form an enforceable contract requiring defendants to repurchase the ring at the full purchase price plus 10% if tendered within one year, without a resale-first condition?
2. Is the buy-back agreement unenforceable under the statute of frauds for sales of goods, and if not, did Molina’s signed “Dear Brother” letter supply a sufficient writing?
3. For a custom ring that underwent post-sale modifications, when did the one-year buy-back period begin to run?
4. Are both Alfred Molina and Molina, Inc. liable for breach of the buy-back obligation?

## Decision

- The court found that plaintiffs proved the existence of a contract: in exchange for plaintiffs’ purchase of the ring, defendants agreed to buy it back at full price plus 10% if tendered within one year.
- The court rejected defendants’ position that repayment depended on Molina first reselling the diamond, finding that condition was not part of the bargain and was raised only after plaintiffs sought to return the ring.
- The court held the agreement was not barred by the statute of frauds because Molina’s signed “Dear Brother” letter sufficiently confirmed the contract and stated the essential terms, even though it attempted to add an inconsistent condition.
- The court determined the one-year period ran from plaintiffs’ receipt of the ring in its final, completed form; plaintiffs’ attempt to exercise the buy-back fell within that period and was timely.
- The court concluded defendants breached by failing to repurchase the ring on the agreed terms.
- The court imposed liability on both Alfred Molina and Molina, Inc.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCC statute of frauds for sales of goods, an otherwise oral agreement may be enforced against a party who later signs a writing that indicates a contract was made and reasonably identifies the subject matter and essential terms.
- A confirming writing need not be a formal contract; a signed letter can satisfy the statute of frauds if it acknowledges the agreement and captures the deal’s core terms.
- A party cannot avoid an agreed repurchase obligation by later proposing a new condition (such as requiring resale before repayment) unless the other party agrees to that modification.
- When a contract ties an option period to receipt of a custom good, and the good is delivered only after additional work, the time period may be measured from delivery in final form.
- A court may resolve disputed contract terms through credibility findings after trial, accepting the account supported by consistent testimony and surrounding circumstances.
- A business entity and its principal may both be bound where the transaction is carried out through the business and for its benefit.

## Conclusion

After a bench trial, the court held that the Elligs proved an oral agreement requiring Molina and Molina, Inc. to buy back the ring for the full purchase price plus 10% if tendered within one year, that Molina’s signed “Dear Brother” letter satisfied the statute of frauds despite adding a resale-first condition, that the one-year period ran from delivery of the ring in final form, and that defendants breached by refusing to repurchase on the agreed terms.


Ellig v. Molina, 996 F. Supp. 2d 236 (2014)