Statute of Frauds
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Baruch College, CUNY *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1101
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
17
Uploaded by SuperHumanGorilla5468
below is an outline for my law class. each lettered and numbered bullet point touches
on a law aspect. can you please elaborate on each one.
if there is a lettered or numbered bullet point with nothing next to if fill in the info
regarding the topic next to the roman numeral.
Certainly, let's fill in the information for the lettered and numbered bullet points:
I. Statute of Frauds (another defense used by ________)
The Statute of Frauds is another defense used by parties in contract disputes. It
requires certain types of contracts to be in writing to be enforceable.
II. Contracts within the Statute of Frauds
a. Contracts for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more.
b. Agreements that cannot be performed within one year.
c. Agreements in consideration of marriage.
d. Contracts involving the transfer of an interest in real property.
e. Guarantees or promises to answer for the debt or duty of another.
III. Who is the party that must sign these contracts in order
for them to be enforceable?
a. The party against whom enforcement is sought (the defendant).
b. The party to be charged (the one making the promise or agreement).
c. In some cases, both parties may need to sign.
IV. Agreements For The Sale of An Interest In Land
a. GOL 5-703: This section of the New York General Obligations Law (GOL) establishes
priorities in certain interests in land.
b. Leases in which the duration is one year or less.
c. GOL 5-703 has priority over GOL 5-701 in determining interests in land.
d. Part Performance Exception
Acts of part performance may include improvements made to the land.
Payment of part of the purchase price.
Possession of the land.
V. One Year Provision - GOL 5-701 (a) 1
a. Possibility Test: Determines whether it is possible for the contract to be performed
within one year.
b. Computation of Time: How time is calculated to determine if the contract can be
performed within one year.
c. Indefinite Period: Contracts with an indefinite period are not subject to the Statute of
Frauds.
d. Lifetime Contract: Contracts that, by their nature, cannot be performed within one
year are subject to the Statute of Frauds.
VI. Collateral Promise (Suretyship)
a. General Rule: Collateral promises, such as suretyship agreements, must be in writing
to be enforceable.
b. Exception - main purpose rule: If the main purpose of the promisor is to benefit
themselves rather than the debtor, the collateral promise may not need to be in writing.
I. Promises in Consideration of Marriage
a. A promise made in consideration of marriage is one of the categories of contracts
that fall under the Statute of Frauds.
b. The promise must typically be in writing to be enforceable.
II. Contracts Involving the Sale of Goods
a. General Rule: Contracts for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more must be in
writing to be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
b. Exceptions - even if there is no signed writing by the defendant:
UCC 2-201 3(a):
a. Specially manufactured goods that are not suitable for sale to others.
b. Goods that have been received and accepted.
c. Goods for which payment has been made and accepted.
UCC 2-201 3(b):
UCC 2-201 3(c):
UCC 2-201 (2): The admission in court by the party against whom enforcement is
sought.
III. Compliance with the Statute of Frauds
a. Form:
The contract must be in writing.
Electronic forms of communication, such as emails, may satisfy the writing
requirement.
Oral evidence is generally not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written
contract.
b. Essential Terms:
●
The writing must contain essential terms, including the identity of the parties, the
subject matter, the quantity, and the consideration.
HW questions
7. Aldo, an adult college student, went to Brentwood
Department store to buy clothes. He selected two new
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
suits and a coat for $350 and asked to open up a charge
D8
account. The credit manager was willing to open account
but was concerned about payment. Aldo told the credit
manager to call Franco, his father. On the telephone,
Franco told the credit manager. “Go ahead, open the
account for him. It will teach him to stand on his own feet
if he has to pay his own bills. But don’t worry, if Aldo
doesn’t pay you, I will.” The clothes were given to Aldo
and billed to Aldo. Aldo failed to pay. The store sues
Franco who pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense.
Judgment for whom? Explain.
Understanding and applying these aspects of the Statute of Frauds is crucial for
business transactions, ensuring that contracts are enforceable and protecting the rights
of the parties involved.
In this scenario, Aldo, an adult college student, went to Brentwood Department store to
buy clothes. He selected two new suits and a coat for $350 and requested to open a
charge account. The credit manager, concerned about payment, called Franco, Aldo's
father. Franco, on the phone, told the credit manager, "Go ahead, open the account for
him. It will teach him to stand on his own feet if he has to pay his own bills. But don’t
worry, if Aldo doesn’t pay you, I will." Aldo received the clothes and the bill but failed to
pay. The store sues Franco, who pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense.
The Statute of Frauds generally requires certain contracts, including those for the sale
of goods over a certain value, to be in writing to be enforceable. One of the exceptions
to this rule is the "suretyship" or "main purpose" exception, where a promise to answer
for the debt of another is enforceable even without a written agreement.
In this case:
Franco made a promise to pay Aldo's debt to the store.
This promise falls under the suretyship exception because it is a promise to
answer for Aldo's debt.
The promise was made verbally over the phone.
The key question here is whether Franco's promise falls under the Statute of Frauds. In
this situation, the promise to pay Aldo's debt likely does not fall within the Statute of
Frauds because of the suretyship exception.
Therefore, the judgment is likely to be in favor of Brentwood Department store. Franco's
verbal promise to pay Aldo's debt, made to the credit manager, is enforceable even
without a written agreement under the suretyship exception. As a result, the store can
hold Franco liable for the unpaid debt, and the Statute of Frauds is not a valid defense in
this case.
8. Assume in the previous question that the credit manager refused to open the account
for Aldo, that he called Franco on the telephone, and Franco said. “I have an account
with your store, give Aldo the clothes and charge them to my account. “The clothes were
given to Aldo. Is Franco liable for payment if he pleads the Statute of Frauds as a
defense? Explain.
In this scenario, Franco made a statement on the telephone to the credit manager,
saying, "I have an account with your store, give Aldo the clothes and charge them to my
account." Aldo received the clothes under Franco's direction. Now, the issue is whether
Franco is liable for payment if he pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense.
The Statute of Frauds generally requires certain contracts to be in writing to be
enforceable. However, the main purpose or suretyship exception might apply in this
case. The suretyship exception allows for the enforceability of promises to answer for
the debt of another, even if not in writing.
In this scenario:
Franco's statement can be interpreted as assuming responsibility for Aldo's debt
to the store.
The promise to pay Aldo's debt falls under the suretyship exception to the Statute
of Frauds.
Therefore, even if Franco pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense, his promise may
still be enforceable due to the suretyship exception. Franco's verbal promise to charge
the clothes to his account, made over the phone, may not require a written agreement
under the circumstances.
As a result, Franco might be held liable for payment despite pleading the Statute of
Frauds as a defense. The suretyship exception would likely apply, making Franco's
promise enforceable without a written agreement.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
9. Bo was the owner of Lot No. 1 on which he had built his home. Sadia owned the
adjoining Lots No. 2 and 3, which were undeveloped, along with Lot No. 4 on which
Sadia’s home was located. Bo wished to acquire Lot No. 2 in order to protect his home
site from crowding if Lot No. 2 should be sold to a stranger. Meeting Sadia on the street
on January 2, Bo explained his wish to acquire Lot No. 2 and offered to buy it from Sadia
for $75,000 cash. Sadia agreed and promised to deliver a deed to Lot No. 2 in 4 weeks.
Bo paid Sadia $1,000 as a deposit or down payment towards the purchase price of
$75.000. On February 1, Sadia told Bo that she had changed her mind. Bo demands that
Sadia perform the contract. Sadia contends that if there is any contract, it is
unenforceable. (a) Was there an offer and acceptance sufficient to constitute a contract
between Sadia and Bo? Explain. (b) In an action by Bo against Sadia for breach of
contract, judgment for whom? Explain. (c) Assume that on January 10, Bo sent to Sadia
his check for $1,000 bearing the notation “On account of purchase price of Lot No. 2”
and that Sadia cashed the check, but later refused to convey Lot No. 2. Would Bo’s
payment constitute sufficient part performance to enable Bo to enforce the contract
against Sadia? Explain. (d) If the contract is not enforceable, may Bo recover his $1,000?
Explain. (e) Assume that in addition to the payment, Bo, with Sadia’s knowledge and
consent, entered on Lot No. 2 and had it cleared of brush on January 20 at a cost of
$150, but Sadia still refused to convey. Would Bo be entitled to obtain a decree of
specific performance to compel Sadia to deliver a deed to Lot No. 2 to Bo upon paying
to Sadia the balance of $74,000? Explain. (f) Would Bo be entitled to recover his $1,000
payment plus the $150 cost of clearing the land? Explain. (g) Assume that on March 1.
Bo instituted a suit for specific performance and that Sadia denied she had agreed to
sell. At the trial, the court decided that Bo was telling the truth and ordered Sadia to
execute and deliver to Bo a deed to Lot. No. 2 upon Bo paying the balance of $74,000. Is
Sadia entitled to have the decision reversed on appeal, if on the appeal Sadia raises for
the first time the defense that her agreement was not in a writing signed by the party to
be charged? Explain.
Let's analyze each part of the scenario:
(a) Was there an offer and acceptance sufficient to constitute
a contract between Sadia and Bo? Explain.
Yes, there was an offer and acceptance. Bo made an offer to Sadia to purchase Lot No.
2 for $75,000 cash, and Sadia accepted this offer. The promise to deliver a deed in 4
weeks indicates an intention to enter into a contract.
(b) In an action by Bo against Sadia for breach of contract,
judgment for whom? Explain.
In an action for breach of contract, judgment would likely be in favor of Bo. Bo and Sadia
had a valid contract, as there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration (the $1,000
deposit). Sadia's change of mind and refusal to convey Lot No. 2 constitute a breach of
contract.
(c) Would Bo’s payment constitute sufficient part
performance to enable Bo to enforce the contract against
Sadia? Explain.
Yes, Bo's payment of $1,000, especially when accompanied by the check bearing the
notation "On account of the purchase price of Lot No. 2," can be considered sufficient
part performance. Part performance can make the contract enforceable, and Bo may be
entitled to enforce the contract against Sadia.
(d) If the contract is not enforceable, may Bo recover his
$1,000? Explain.
If the contract is not enforceable due to the Statute of Frauds or any other reason, Bo
may still be entitled to recover his $1,000 as restitution for the deposit made in
anticipation of a valid contract.
(e) Would Bo be entitled to obtain a decree of specific
performance to compel Sadia to deliver a deed to Lot No. 2 to
Bo upon paying the balance of $74,000? Explain.
Bo may be entitled to specific performance. His payment, the check with the notation,
and the clearing of the land on Lot No. 2 could collectively be considered part
performance. Specific performance may be granted if the court finds that Bo
substantially performed his obligations under the contract.
(f) Would Bo be entitled to recover his $1,000 payment plus
the $150 cost of clearing the land? Explain.
Yes, Bo would likely be entitled to recover his $1,000 payment as restitution for the
deposit and the $150 cost of clearing the land as part of the damages for Sadia's breach
of contract.
(g) Is Sadia entitled to have the decision reversed on appeal
if she raises the defense that her agreement was not in
writing signed by the party to be charged?
Sadia may not be entitled to have the decision reversed on appeal based on the Statute
of Frauds. If Sadia did not raise the Statute of Frauds defense during the trial and only
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
raises it on appeal, it might be considered a waived defense. Courts often require timely
assertion of the Statute of Frauds defense. If it was not raised in the trial court, it may
not be considered on appeal.
12. On December 15, Lisa, a landlord, entered into an oral agreement with Tom to lease
apartment 5W to Tom for one year starting on January 1, at a rental of $2,000 per
month. On the same day Lisa hired Jarvis as superintendent of the building for a period
of one year starting January 1 at a salary of $5,000 per month. On December 20, Lisa
changed her mind and notified Tom and Jarvis that she would not rent to Tom or
employ Jarvis. D9 (a) In an action by Tom against Lisa, judgment for whom if Lisa
pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense? Explain. (b) In an action by Jarvis against
Lisa judgment for whom if Lisa pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense? Explain.
In this scenario, Lisa entered into an oral agreement with Tom to lease an apartment for
one year and also hired Jarvis as the superintendent of the building. Later, Lisa changed
her mind and notified both Tom and Jarvis that she would not proceed with the
agreements.
(a) In an action by Tom against Lisa, judgment for whom if
Lisa pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense? Explain.
The Statute of Frauds generally requires certain contracts, including leases for a term
longer than one year, to be in writing to be enforceable. In this case:
●
The oral agreement between Lisa and Tom falls under the Statute of Frauds
because it is a lease for a term longer than one year.
●
Lisa, as the party to be charged, may plead the Statute of Frauds as a defense.
(i) Judgment for Whom:
●
Judgment would likely be in favor of Lisa.
●
Tom may have difficulty enforcing the oral lease agreement in court because it is
not in writing and is subject to the Statute of Frauds.
(ii) Explanation:
●
Since the lease agreement is not in writing, it may not be enforceable under the
Statute of Frauds.
●
Tom may not succeed in the action against Lisa unless there is some exception
to the Statute of Frauds that applies or if Tom can show part performance or
detrimental reliance.
(b) In an action by Jarvis against Lisa, judgment for whom if
Lisa pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense? Explain.
Similar to the situation with Tom, the Statute of Frauds would likely apply to the oral
employment agreement between Lisa and Jarvis.
(i) Judgment for Whom:
●
Judgment would likely be in favor of Lisa.
●
Jarvis may face challenges in enforcing the oral employment agreement if Lisa
pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense.
(ii) Explanation:
●
Employment contracts for a term longer than one year generally fall under the
Statute of Frauds.
●
Since the oral agreement with Jarvis is not in writing, it may not be enforceable
under the Statute of Frauds.
●
Jarvis may need to establish an exception or demonstrate part performance to
succeed in the action.
In both cases, the enforceability of the oral agreements is hindered by the Statute of
Frauds, and judgments would likely be in favor of Lisa unless there are applicable
exceptions or circumstances that make the agreements enforceable.
10. Assume that in the preceding problem Sadia had sent to Bo a receipt for the $1,000
reading as follows: “January 11. Received from Bo $1,000 on account of $75,000
purchase price of Lot No. 2 at 27 Y Street. Albans, NY Closing in 4 weeks. (Signed)
Sadia.” (a) Would Bo be entitled to a decree of specific performance against Sadia?
Explain. (b) Assume that Sadia is willing to perform, but that Bo refuses. Would Sadia be
entitled to damages against Bo? Explain.
(a) Would Bo be entitled to a decree of specific performance
against Sadia? Explain.
(i) Explanation:
●
The receipt from Sadia, acknowledging the receipt of $1,000 on account of the
$75,000 purchase price for Lot No. 2, creates a written record of the transaction.
●
This receipt could be seen as a memorandum satisfying the Statute of Frauds, as
it contains essential terms, including the parties, the property, the amount paid,
and an indication of the closing date.
●
Bo would likely be entitled to a decree of specific performance against Sadia, as
the written receipt can be considered sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
(b) Assume that Sadia is willing to perform, but Bo refuses.
Would Sadia be entitled to damages against Bo? Explain.
(i) Explanation:
●
If Sadia is willing to perform, but Bo refuses, Sadia may be entitled to damages
for breach of contract.
●
The receipt, serving as written evidence of the agreement, would strengthen
Sadia's position in court.
●
Sadia could seek damages equal to the loss she suffered as a result of Bo's
breach, including any financial losses incurred due to the failure of the sale.
●
Sadia may also seek specific performance if damages are not an adequate
remedy.
In summary, the receipt provided by Sadia could play a crucial role in establishing the
enforceability of the contract, potentially allowing Bo to pursue specific performance. If
Bo refuses to perform, Sadia may be entitled to damages for breach of contract.
13. (a) On December 5, Alvin entered into an oral agreement with Courtney to perform
certain advisory services for Courtney for a fee of $15,000 per month. The services were
to commence on the following February 15, and to end on December 15. Is the
agreement enforceable? Explain. (b) Also on December 5, Alvin entered into an oral
agreement with Francine for Francine to do some remodeling and rewiring of Alvin’s
offices. The agreement provided that Francine was to be paid $20,000 and was to
complete all work no later than December 15 of the following year. Is the agreement
enforceable? Explain.
(a) Alvin's Oral Agreement with Courtney for Advisory
Services:
(i) Analysis:
●
The agreement is for advisory services for a fee of $15,000 per month, starting
on February 15 and ending on December 15.
●
The services extend for a period longer than one year, making it subject to the
Statute of Frauds.
(ii) Enforcement:
●
The agreement is likely unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds unless there is
a written memorandum or document signed by the party to be charged
(Courtney) indicating the essential terms of the agreement.
●
Without a written document satisfying the Statute of Frauds, Alvin may face
challenges enforcing the agreement.
(b) Alvin's Oral Agreement with Francine for Remodeling and
Rewiring:
(i) Analysis:
●
The agreement involves remodeling and rewiring of Alvin's offices, with Francine
to be paid $20,000, and the work to be completed by December 15 of the
following year.
●
The completion date is beyond one year, triggering the Statute of Frauds.
(ii) Enforcement:
●
Similar to the first scenario, the agreement is likely unenforceable under the
Statute of Frauds unless there is a written memorandum or document signed by
the party to be charged (Francine) that includes the essential terms.
●
A written contract or memorandum specifying the terms, signed by Francine,
would be required for the agreement to be enforceable.
In summary, both oral agreements involving services for a period exceeding one year
are likely unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds unless there is a written document
signed by the party to be charged (Courtney or Francine) that satisfies the requirements
of the Statute of Frauds. Without such written evidence, Alvin may encounter difficulties
in enforcing these agreements.
17. On May 1, Study and Burrow, two college professors, entered into an oral contract
under which Study agreed to sell his computer to Burrow for $1,300, with delivery and
payment on May 15. On May 2, Study sent Burrow a signed letter confirming all the
terms of their oral contract. Burrow received Study’s letter on May 3 but never
responded. On May 15, Study tendered delivery of the computer to Burrow, but Burrow
refused to accept or pay for it, stating that he had changed his mind and did not need
Study’s computer. Study sues Burrow for breach of contract. Burrow pleads the Statute
of Frauds as a defense. (a) Judgment for whom? Explain. (b) If Study and Burrow were
merchants who sold computers, judgment for whom? Explain.
(a) If Burrow pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense:
(i) Explanation:
●
The oral contract between Study and Burrow is for the sale of goods (the
computer) for a price of $1,300.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
●
The Statute of Frauds, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Section 2-201,
requires contracts for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more to be in writing to
be enforceable.
●
Study sent Burrow a signed letter on May 2 confirming all the terms of their oral
contract.
(ii) Judgment:
●
Judgment would likely be in favor of Study.
●
The written confirmation provided by Study on May 2 satisfies the Statute of
Frauds. Although Burrow did not respond to the letter, the written confirmation
from Study serves as sufficient written evidence of the contract.
(b) If Study and Burrow were merchants who sold computers:
(i) Explanation:
●
The UCC has a different provision under Section 2-201(2) that modifies the
Statute of Frauds requirement for contracts between merchants.
●
If both Study and Burrow are merchants in the business of selling computers, a
written confirmation is effective against Burrow unless he objects to it within 10
days of receiving it.
(ii) Judgment:
●
Judgment would likely be in favor of Study, even if Burrow pleads the Statute of
Frauds.
●
The written confirmation sent by Study on May 2 satisfies the Statute of Frauds
under the UCC, and Burrow's failure to object within 10 days renders it
enforceable.
In summary, if the Statute of Frauds is raised as a defense, the outcome depends on
whether Study and Burrow are merchants. If they are not merchants, the written
confirmation still satisfies the Statute of Frauds. If they are merchants, the UCC
provision modifies the requirement, and the written confirmation would be enforceable
against Burrow.