Hannah orally agrees to sell her house to Brett for $175,000. If she delivers the deed to Brett with the expectation of payment in two weeks and he fails to pay, most courts will not enforce the contract since it was not in writing.
Bry, Inc. and Gangl Co. entered into an oral agreement for the sale of 3,000 sweaters. Both parties performed as required under the contract. Bry delivered the sweaters and Gangl accepted and paid for them. Since the contract is fully executed, it makes no difference that it was oral.
Parol evidence refers to anything (other than the written contract itself) that was said, done, or written before or as the parties signed the contract.
Either party may demand rescission of a fully executed oral contract if it was required to have been in writing under the statute of frauds.
Rest Well Hotel orally ordered 1,000 blankets monogrammed with its initials, RWH, from TriColor Textiles. TriColor had just finished monogramming the blankets when Rest Well called and canceled the order. TriColor will be able to enforce the agreement even though there was no writing.
Robin and Bellman, both merchants, orally agree to a contract for the sale of $5000 of accessories. Bellman, the buyer, sends to Robin, the seller, a written confirmation of the sale, which is sufficient against Bellman under the statute of frauds and which Bellman signs. Robin does not sign. Robin fails to perform the contract and does not ship out the goods. Bellman sues. This contract is:
enforceable even without Robin's signature because both parties are merchants.
In order to satisfy the statute of frauds, a writing must:
be signed by the defendant and contain the name of each party, the subject matter of the agreement, and the essential terms and promises.
Willis and Leslie orally agree to the sale of a parcel of land for $50,000: one-half payable now as a down payment; one-half payable in 30 days at the time of closing when the title will be transferred. The buyer, Willis, is to have possession immediately. Willis pays Leslie $25,000, takes possession of the land, and starts building a house. At the time of closing, Willis has made a substantial beginning on the house. However, Leslie refuses to transfer the title, claiming the oral contract is not enforceable. This contract is:
enforceable, because Willis has partially performed the oral contract and made improvements on the land.
Abby dies, and her good friend, Clay is appointed to administer Abby's estate. Abby's house was in poor condition, so Clay orally hired a contractor to make repairs. Clay also orally promised that if the estate could not pay the repair bill, he would pay it even though he does not live in the house and has no entitlement under Abby's estate. The estate does not pay the repair bill. Who can the contractor collect from, if anyone?
The contractor can collect from the estate only
Derek and Abyan were discussing business over lunch when they agreed on the sale of a five-acre parcel of land. Since neither of them had any paper with them, Derek wrote the following on a napkin: "Abyan agrees to purchase from Derek a 5-acre parcel located at the local address of 123 105th Street, St. Joseph, Minnesota, U.S.A. for the price of $4,500 per acre. Transfer of title, payment, and possession to take place on May 1, 2011." Abyan signed the napkin. On May 1, 2011, Derek was ready to close the deal and transfer title but Abyan refused to pay the purchase price. If Derek sues Abyan for the price of the land, the most likely result will be:
Derek will win because the writing is sufficient under the statute of frauds
Which of the following types of contracts cannot be either contradicted or supplemented by evidence of prior agreements or expressions?
Totally integrated contracts.
Claude agrees to lease his house to Irvin for nine months, the lease to begin six months from the signing of the contract. Under the statute of frauds:
the lease is required to be in writing because of the one-year rule.
The main difference between the UCC requirement for a writing for a contract for the sale of goods and the common law is that the:
UCC does not require all the terms of the agreement to be in writing
Amy Hudson has been trying to purchase Glen Cappel's antique desk for some time, but Glen has been reluctant to sell. One evening Glen said to Amy, "Okay, I'll sell the desk for $550." Amy replied, "Thank you, Glen. I accept." The agreement was not reduced to writing, but Glen and Amy did shake hands. Two days later, Amy sent Glen a letter outlining the terms of the agreement, and stating that she would deliver $550 cash according to the agreement within ten days. The letter was signed, "Best regards, Amy." Later, Amy had second thoughts, and refused to go through with the purchase. Nothing had been exchanged at this point. Glen:
can enforce the contract against Amy because the statute of frauds is satisfied under this situation.
Vicki entered into a written contract to buy a car from Valley Motors. The written contract included a provision that stated, "This writing is the full and final expression of the parties' agreement; anything said before signing or while signing is irrelevant." This is:
an integration clause.
Sonny, a college student, places a telephone order for a new computer from Computers, Inc. The price of the computer is $1500. The clerk who takes the order sends Sonny a copy of the invoice. The next week, Sonny calls back and tries to cancel his order.
Sonny can cancel the order; the invoice is unenforceable against him, as he did not sign the invoice.
Martin, Human Resources Director for Spring Co., sent Lynn the following signed letter: "This letter confirms our offer to you. We will pay for your moving expenses, up to $1,500. Your starting date will be February 1, and you will become eligible for health care benefits as of May 1. You will receive a starting salary of $36,500 annually, with reviews and eligibility for increases at six months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. Vacation will be for two weeks a year after one year." Spring fired Lynn eight months after she started to work, and Lynn sued arguing the letter constituted a memorandum of an oral contract for employment for five years. Is the letter sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds?
No, to satisfy the statute of frauds, the memorandum must contain all essential terms of the contract.