OPINION OF THE COURT

Eastern Adhesives appeals an order of the District Court denying its motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and granting Scapa North America’s motion to stiike the Second Amended Complaint. Eastern Adhesives’s pleadings alleged Scapa breached a 2001 oral contract. Under the agreement, Scapa would supply Eastern Adhesives’s requirements of a tape product, SP357-.003, for resale to a third party, and Scapa would not itself sell SP357-.003 or similar products to the third party. Because the alleged agreement was for more than five-hundred dollars and made orally, we consider whether the Pennsylvania statute of frauds, 13 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 2201, bars enforcement of Eastern Adhesives’s claims. 1

I.

At the outset we must address waiver because four of Eastern Adhesives’s arguments were neither raised in the District Court nor were grounds for the District *34 Court’s judgment. “Generally, failure to raise an issue in the District Court results in its waiver on appeal.” Huber v. Taylor, 469 F.3d 67, 74 (3d Cir. 2006). Eastern Adhesives makes four new arguments: (1) the merchant’s exception to the statute of frauds in 13 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 2201(b) applies; (2) the § 2201(c)(3) exception to the statute of frauds regarding goods received and accepted applies; (3) Scapa waived the statute of frauds defense because oral agreements are the standard practice in the trade, see Atl. Paper Box Co. v. Whitman's Chocolates, 844 F.Supp. 1038, 1043-45 (E.D.Pa. 1994); and (4) under ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855 (3d Cir. 1994), a plaintiff can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defendant might admit the existence of the contract in its pleadings, discovery, or in court. Because Eastern Adhesives did not raise these issues in the District Court 2 and because they were not part of the District Court’s holding, they are waived and we address only Eastern Adhesives’s two remaining claims. 3

II.

Eastern Adhesives contends the letters it exchanged with Scapa in 2002 and which it attached to the Complaint are sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. A contract for the sale of goods for five hundred dollars or more is not enforceable “unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.” 13 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 2201(a). Eastern Adhesives argues a letter it sent Scapa in June 2002, which refers to an “account protection agreement,” 4 established the context for Scapa’s signed, written responses in July and October 2002. Because these subsequent communications fail to disclaim such an agreement, the argument goes, Scapa’s letters admit the agreement.

To the extent Eastern Adhesives suggests the merchant’s exception to the statute of frauds applies because Scapa failed *35 to object, the argument is waived. See supra. To the extent Eastern Adhesives suggests Scapa’s letters incorporated the assertion of an agreement by reference in its own signed writings, the letters attached to the pleadings provide no support. Scapa’s letters do not refer to an account protection agreement. They recognize Eastern Adhesives lost one of its clients when Scapa began selling directly to that client. Additionally, they acknowledge Scapa sought to avoid losing Eastern Adhesives for other business. These documents do not refer to Eastern Adhesives’s assertions of an account protection agreement, nor do they demonstrate a requirements contract between Eastern Adhesives and Scapa. Accordingly, the letters do not satisfy the statute of frauds.

III.

Second, Eastern Adhesives contends Scapa’s Connecticut state-court action admits the exclusive requirements contract. A contract is enforceable if “the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made.” Id. § 2201(c)(2). The contract, however, “is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted.” Id. Eastern Adhesives does not identify a quantity of goods in the Connecticut Complaint, much less an agreement to fill its requirements. Accordingly, because the contract cannot be enforced beyond the quantity admitted, id., and Eastern Adhesives does not identify the quantity, Scapa’s Connecticut action does not satisfy the statute of frauds.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we -will affirm the judgment of the District Court.