No matter on what theory the plaintiff might have been able to make out a case entitling it to a recovery, it is obvious *112 from the complaint filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff sought to recover from Kramers on a contract for the sale of goods for a price in excess of $500.00.

We must consider the case on the same theory in which it was presented in the trial court. Leffew v. Orrell, 7 N.C. App. 333, 172 S.E. 2d 243 (1970). The two documents relied upon by the plaintiff and signed by the defendant Kramers do not make out an enforceable contract under North Carolina General Statute 25-2-201. We think the trial court was correct.

Affirmed.