Chapter 16 Questions
Terms in this set (14)
Don and Peter each signed a memorandum stating that Don agreed to sell and Peter agreed to purchase a tract of land. The memorandum did not recite the purchase price. Don relies upon the statute of frauds as a defense to performance. If Peter offers evidence that the parties agreed upon a purchase price of $75,000 just prior to signing, Peter should
it is not a contract because it is not in writing.
On May 1, Dix and Wilk entered into an oral agreement by which Dix agreed to purchase a small parcel of land from Wilk for $450. The following day, Wilk received another offer to purchase the land for $650, the fair market value. Wilk immediately notified Dix that Wilk would not sell the land for $450. If Dix sues Wilk
Wilk will win because there was no contract enforced in writing.
Nolan agreed orally with Train to sell Train a house for $100,000. Train sent Nolan a signed agreement and a down payment of $10,000. Nolan did not sign the agreement but allowed Train to move into the house. Before closing, Nolan refused to go through with the sale. Train sued Nolan to compel specific performance. Will he win?
Train will win because he moved into the house so there was specific performance and promissory estoppel.
Tanya promises to support Ultima for the rest of her life
Does not have to be in writing because it can possibly be performed in one year
On January 1, Vance promises to act as Wally's agent for 1 year ending on the following January
does not have to be in writing
Xenia promises to serve as legal counsel for Yvonne's company for 2 years
must be in writing
Zoe agrees to serve as Ava Company's vice-president for 1 year if Bee will sit on the board of directors for 18 months. Zoe has completed performance.
must not be in writing and is an unconditional contract
On June 1, Year 1, Decker orally guaranteed the payment of a $5,000 note Decker's cousin owed Baker. On June 3, Year 1, Baker wrote Decker confirming Decker's guarantee. Decker did not object to the confirmation. On August 23, Year 1, Decker's cousin defaulted on the note. Is Decker liable for the guarantee?
Decker is not liable for the guarantee because it is not in writing.
Iona promises Jonna to pay her rent if Jonna does not receive her paycheck by the end of the month.
not enforceable and not s promise to the creditor because it is not in writing and not communicated to the lender
Ken is to build houses for Luana. When Ken fails to pay for certain added materials, Luana promises the supplier to pay Ken's current and future debts if Ken does not.Luana has a contract to sell the houses by a certain date to Mara.
can be oral if it is benefit to herself as it does not apply to statute of frauds because she is acting in her own self-interest.
Nona tells Jackson, "sell Phoebe $200 worth of supplies for school and send me the bill."
not a promise because she did not clarify if she will pay the bill
Queenie tells Rhoda, "sell Sue $400 worth of lumber. If she doesn't pay, send me the bill."
it is a promise but it must be in writing to be enforceable.
A ship came into port to receive a shipment of goods. The insurance policy provided that the policy would not be enforceable or effective while the ship was in port loading. The ship was fully loaded during the day and remained in port during the night while waiting for a storm to blow over. During the night, the storm worsened and the ship was totally destroyed. A question has arisen about whether the insurance policy covers the damage because the ship was not actually in the loading process but was in port for the purpose of loading. Is evidence of oral conversations at the time the contract was formed concerning this issue prohibited by the Parol Evidence Rule?
no evidence is not prohibited.
Ward is attempting to introduce oral evidence in an action relating to a written contract between Ward and Weaver. Weaver has pleaded the parol evidence rule. Will Ward be prohibited from introducing parol evidence if it relates to a change in the meaning of an unambiguous provision in the contract?
No because it is unambiguous evidence meaning it does not need explaining.