Ch 14 Flashcards
S/F writing requirements
253
- contacts involving interests in real property
- contracts that by their own terms cannot possibly be performed within 1 yr
- collateral contracts in which a person promises to answer for the debt or duty of another
- promises made in consideration
- contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more
- contracts for the lease of goods with payments of $1,000 or more
- real estate agents contracts
- agents contracts where the underlying contract must be in writing
- promises to write a will
- contracts to pay debts barred by the statute of limitations or discharged in bankruptcy
- contracts to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating the purchase of a business
- finder’s fee contracts
Transactions within the S/F
253
Transactions within the S/F
253
Transactions within the S/F
253
Transactions within the S/F
253
Transactions within the S/F
253
Parol evidence
259
any oral or written words outside the dour corners of a written contract
Parol evidence rule
259
rule stating that if a written contract is a complete and final statement of the parties agreement, any prior or contemporaneous oral or written contract are inadmissible in court regarding a dispute over the contract. there are several exceptions to this rule.
Main Purpose Doctrine
256
leading object exception
an exception to the statute of frauds that states that if the main purpose of a transaction and an oral collateral contract is to provide pecuniary benefit to the guarantor, the collateral contract does not have to be in writing to be enforced.
president and sole shareholder of company, borrows $100,000 from bank and orally guarantees to repay the loan if the corporation fails to pay it. If fails, bank can enforce her to pay because loan benefits her.
Guaranty Contract
255-256
promise in which one person agrees to answer for the debts or duties of another person. it is a contract between the guarantor and the original creditor.
1.
Ames, Bell, Cain, and Dole each orally ordered color television sets from Marvel Electronics Company, which accepted the orders. Ames’s set was to be specially designed and encased in an ebony cabinet. Bell, Cain, and Dole ordered standard sets described as “Alpha Omega Theatre.” The price of Ames’s set was $1,800, and the sets ordered by Bell, Cain, and Dole were $700 each. Bell paid the company $75 to apply on his purchase; Ames, Cain, and Dole paid nothing. The next day, Marvel sent Ames, Bell, Cain, and Dole written confirmations captioned “Purchase Memorandum,” numbered 12345, 12346, 12347, and 12348 respectively, containing the essential terms of the oral agreements. Each memorandum was sent in duplicate with the request that one copy be signed and returned to the company. None of the four purchasers returned a signed copy. Ames promptly sent the company a repudiation of the oral contract, which it received before beginning manufacture of the set for Ames or making commitments to carry out the contract. Cain sent the company a letter reading in part, “Referring to your Contract No. 12347, please be advised I have canceled this contract. Yours truly, (Signed) Cain.” The four television sets were duly tendered by Marvel to Ames, Bell, Cain, and Dole, all of whom refused to accept delivery. Marvel brings four separate actions against Ames, Bell, Cain, and Dole for breach of contract. Decide each claim.
All four contracts are within the statute of frauds as they are for the sale of goods in an amount of $500 or more.
If you assume Ames, Bell, Cain, and Dole are not merchants, then:
Ames–is not liable under UCC 2-201(3)(a) as Ames repudiated the contract before Marvel made either a substantial beginning of its manufacture or commitments for its procurement
Bell–may be liable for breach of contract if Bell’s $75 payment was by check and the check contained the information required by UCC 2-2001 to constitute the check as a sufficient writing
Cain–is liable for breach of contract as Cain signed a letter saying Cain cancelled the contract, thus admitting there was a contract
Dole–is not liable for breach of contract
If you assume that Ames, Bell, Cain, and Dole are merchants, then:
Bell–answer does not change for above reason and if Bell did not object in writing withing ten-(10) days [UCC 2-201(1) and 2-201(2)]
Cain–answer does not change [UCC 2-201(1)] Dole–is liable under UCC 2-201(2)
Ames–might be liable under UCC 2-201(2) depending on when Ames sent his repudiation to Marvel
- On March 1, Lucas called Craig on the telephone and offered to pay him $90,000 for a house and lot that Craig owned. Craig accepted the offer immediately on the telephone. Later in the same day, Lucas told Annabelle that if she would marry him, he would convey to her the property then owned by Craig that was the subject of the earlier agreement. On March 2 Lucas called Penelope and offered her $16,000 if she would work for him for the year commencing March 15, and she agreed. Lucas and Annabelle were married on June 24. By this time, Craig has refused to convey the house to Lucas. Thereafter, Lucas renounced his promise to convey the property to Annabelle. Penelope, who had been working for Lucas, was discharged without cause on July 5; Annabelle left Lucas and instituted divorce proceedings in July.
What rights, if any, have (a) Lucas against Craig for his failure to convey the property; (b) Annabelle against Lucas for failure to convey the house to her; and (c) Penelope against Lucas for discharging her before the end of the agreed term of employment?
All three of Lucas’s contracts are within the statute of frauds and thus must satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds to be enforceable.
Craig–sale of real property
Annabelle–promise upon consideration of marriage
Penelope–possible of being performed within one year from the date it was made
None of the three contracts met the requirements of the statute of frauds and are thus not enforceable.
Penelope would, however, be entitled to be paid for the reasonable value of her services for the time she actually worked.
