Statute of frauds Flashcards
Rogers and Lennon entered into a written computer consulting agreement that required Lennon to provide certain weekly reports to Rogers. The agreement also stated that Lennon would provide the computer equipment necessary to perform the services and that Rogers’ computer would not be used. As the parties were executing the agreement, they orally agreed that Lennon could use Rogers’ computer. After executing the agreement, Rogers and Lennon orally agreed that Lennon would report on a monthly, rather than weekly, basis. The parties now disagree on Lennon’s right to use Rogers’ computer and how often Lennon must report to Rogers. In the event of a lawsuit between the parties, the parol evidence rule will
A. Not apply to any of the parties’ agreements because the consulting agreement did not have to be in writing.
B. Not prevent Lennon from proving the parties’ oral agreement that Lennon could use Rogers’ computer.
.C. Not prevent the admission into evidence of testimony regarding Lennon’s right to report on a monthly basis.
This answer is correct because an exception to the parol evidence rule allows evidence of “subsequent agreements” to be admitted into evidence. The parol evidence rule applies to complete and unambiguous written contracts and prohibits any evidence that would modify or alter the contract. This rule would apply to oral agreements made “prior” to the formation of the written contract but does not apply to “subsequent” agreements
D. Not apply to the parties’ agreement to allow Lennon to use Rogers’ computer because it was contemporaneous with the written agreement.
This answer is incorrect because the parol evidence rule applies to complete and unambiguous written contracts and makes any evidence that would modify or alter the complete written contract terms inadmissible. The terms of the written contract apply even though at the time of formation an oral agreement was made to modify the written contract terms.
C. Not prevent the admission into evidence of testimony regarding Lennon’s right to report on a monthly basis.
This answer is correct because an exception to the parol evidence rule allows evidence of “subsequent agreements” to be admitted into evidence. The parol evidence rule applies to complete and unambiguous written contracts and prohibits any evidence that would modify or alter the contract. This rule would apply to oral agreements made “prior” to the formation of the written contract but does not apply to “subsequent” agreements
Wrong Answer that I selected was
D. Not apply to the parties’ agreement to allow Lennon to use Rogers’ computer because it was contemporaneous with the written agreement.
This answer is incorrect because the parol evidence rule applies to complete and unambiguous written contracts and makes any evidence that would modify or alter the complete written contract terms inadmissible. The terms of the written contract apply even though at the time of formation an oral agreement was made to modify the written contract terms.
To which of the following transactions does the common law Statute of Frauds not apply?
A. Contracts for the sale of real estate.
B. Agreements made in consideration of marriage.
C. Promises to pay the debt of another.
Paying the debt of another requires a writing.
D. Contracts that can be performed within one year.
Only contracts that CANNOT be performed within a year must be in writing.
D. Contracts that can be performed within one year.
Only contracts that CANNOT be performed within a year must be in writing.
Wrong answer
C. Promises to pay the debt of another.
Paying the debt of another requires a writing.
Carson agreed orally to repair Ives’ rare book for $450. Before the work was started, Ives asked Carson to perform additional repairs to the book and agreed to increase the contract price to $650. After Carson completed the work, Ives refused to pay and Carson sued. Ives’ defense was based on the Statute of Frauds. What total amount will Carson recover?
A. $0
B. $200
C. $450
This answer is incorrect because this is a service contract and not a sale of goods. Thus, the Statute of Frauds as a defense dealing with the sale of goods priced at $500 or more is not applicable. In addition, modification of a service contract requires consideration to be binding.
D. $650
The Statute of Frauds requires that all contracts of $500 or more for a sale of goods be in writing. Although a book is a good, this contract does not call for its sale but for its repair. The repair of a book is a service, and so is not covered by the Statute of Frauds and the writing requirement. In addition, any modifications of a service contract require consideration to support the modifications. Here, the additional $200 was for additional repairs (consideration), and thus the modification is binding. Carson can recover $650.
D. $650
The Statute of Frauds requires that all contracts of $500 or more for a sale of goods be in writing. Although a book is a good, this contract does not call for its sale but for its repair. The repair of a book is a service, and so is not covered by the Statute of Frauds and the writing requirement. In addition, any modifications of a service contract require consideration to support the modifications. Here, the additional $200 was for additional repairs (consideration), and thus the modification is binding. Carson can recover $650.
Wrong Answer selected
C. $450
This answer is incorrect because this is a service contract and not a sale of goods. Thus, the Statute of Frauds as a defense dealing with the sale of goods priced at $500 or more is not applicable. In addition, modification of a service contract requires consideration to be binding.
Bond and Spear orally agreed that Bond would buy a car from Spear for $475. Bond paid Spear a $100 deposit. The next day, Spear received an offer of $575, the car’s fair market value.
Spear immediately notified Bond that Spear would not sell the car to Bond and returned Bond’s $100.
If Bond sues Spear and Spear defends on the basis of the Statute of Frauds, Bond will probably
A. Lose, because the agreement was for less than the fair market value of the car.
B. Win, because the agreement was for less than $500.
C. Lose, because the agreement was not in writing and signed by Spear.
D. Win, because Bond paid a deposit.
B. Win, because the agreement was for less than $500.
This is correct because for the sale of goods under the Statute of Frauds, contracts for goods priced at $ 500 or more require a writing to be enforceable. This oral contract for a good (car) is $475, under $500, and thus enforceable.
Wrong Answer
D. Win, because Bond paid a deposit.
This answer is incorrect because the sales contract for the car is under $500 (requirement for the contract to fall under the Statute of Frauds), and thus the oral contract is enforceable without an exception, such as a payment or deposit.
