the statute of frauds

Question 1

statute of frauds

Answer 1

courts don’t like this- arbitrary, form over substance
-statutes requiring certain contracts be in writing to be enforceable
should we let people out of their promises just because they didn’t write them down?

Question 2

marriage

Answer 2

a promise in consideration for a promise of marriage must be written to be enforceable

example: suitor promises to adopt widow’s son if widow will marry suitor
- prenuptial agreements must also be in writing to be enforceable and postnuptial

Question 3

the one year rule

Answer 3

contracts that by their own terms cannot be performed in one year, must be in writing
1. the one year period begins the day after the contract is made
2. ucc exception- under 2003 amendments, 1 year rule will not apply to sales of goods-on test, one year rule will apply
focus on whether performing contract within 1 year is possible (not just likely)

Question 4

land

Answer 4

contracts involving interests in land: includes contracts to sell, lease or borrow money secured by land (mortgage)
land=real property and all physical objects permanently attached to the soil (buildings, trees, fences, minerals)

Question 5

executor

Answer 5

an executors (administrator of the estate) promise to personally pay all the debts of the estate must be in writing

Question 6

guarantor

Answer 6

collateral(secondary) promises by a guarantor must be in writing
1. a guarantor promises to pay another’s debt if the person doesn’t pay- only pay if they don’t

Question 7

sales of goods

Answer 7

under the UCC, sales of goods for 500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable

Question 8

exception: partial performance

Answer 8

examples: take possession of land, accept payment or make delivery of goods; make customized goods- acting like there’s a contract
- promissory estoppel- an oral promise can be enforceable despite statute of frauds if person relied on that promise to his detriment (in some states)

Question 9

parol evidence rule

Answer 9

if the contract language is unambiguous, extrinsic/parol evidence is not admitted - if there’s a contract dispute, any evidence other than the contract won’t be admitted

Question 10

exception: parol evidence

Answer 10

parol evidence is admissible:

1. to show a subsequent modification (written or oral) of the contract
2. to show contract is voidable or void because of a defense
3. to clarify ambiguous terms - confusion about what they mean
4. to show prior dealing, course of performance or trade usage (UCC)- how have we been performing until now
5. to correct an obvious clerical error