The first issue to determine is what this contract falls under. Since the goods involved are for an amount over $500 the contract must be in writing. (West 270) Therefore, in accordance with the Statute of Frauds, the oral portion of their agreement is not valid and the contract is not enforceable. Further examination of the total situation needs to be performed because the issue contains more elements. It was mentioned that the person offering the good to be sold, Brant, created a memorandum listing the following elements: the names of the parties, the date, and the exact terms of the contract. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) states that it is a requirement that a writing or memorandum be made for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more. The UCC also requires that the only items that needs to be on the memorandum is the quantity of the goods sold and a signature of the person being charged for not fulfilling their portion of the contract. (West 275) In this situation, the memorandum that Brant created needs to have the signature of Cooper for it to be valid. Since the situation mentioned didn't specify that Cooper had signed the memorandum, there is not enough information to determine if the contract is enforceable by Brant. If Cooper didn't sign the memorandum, then he will not be forced to comply with the agreement and Cooper will not be able to file for remedies.
Exemptions occur to the oral contract requirements mentioned above. The UCC does allow the enforcement of oral contracts if the contract in dispute involves customized goods and if the transaction occurred between merchants. (West 275) If Cooper was purchasing a "customized" coin collection; for example if Brant actually manufactured individual coins specifically for Cooper, Cooper may have to fulfill his obligations and purchase the coins. An real life example of a customized coin collection, is when senior leaders in the military purchase unit specific coins for their soldiers.