quick contracts statute of frauds question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

quick contracts statute of frauds question

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:48 pm

If two parties engaged in an oral contract, and only one of the parties (person A) put it in writing, but more for her own records and signs it, but then puts it away in her room, and the other person does not get access to it... would it be enforceable AGAINST HER (Party A), if the other person wanted to file for breach of contract? Or would she have needed to send a copy to the other party, and have it delivered to them as well? Sorry hope that makes sense, my mind is literally fried.

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: quick contracts statute of frauds question

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:53 pm

In your hypo we can infer that B doesn't even know about it. But if you meant to say that B does know that it exists, then a question of memorialization arises.

lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: quick contracts statute of frauds question

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:57 pm

Yeah, B never even knew A put it in writing. Oh, and obviously the contract was for over $500.

I just mean if B ever wanted to enforce the contract, does it matter that A has a writing she signed privately, stashed somewhere in her room? Or would the oral contract be enforceable by nobody, as if the writing never happened. Is there a requirement that the other party know of the signed writing or that it have been delivered back to them?

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: quick contracts statute of frauds question

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:00 am

2-201(2) seems to infer that both parties must know of its existence (provided that both A and B are merchants in this hypo). The reason I questioned about whether B knew of the writing is because how could B even use the written agreement to establish liability if he doesn't even know it exists?

lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: quick contracts statute of frauds question

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:03 am

Thanks, that's what I figured makes most sense. I just want to make sure I have every possibility covered. Would the outcome have been different if the two parties were not merchants, although, it was still for the sale of a good?

lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: quick contracts statute of frauds question

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:07 am

Yeah, it's a pretty poor hypo :P , the point I was trying to get at, was just if a writing needed to be sent out to the other party to be enforceable, or it the act of putting it in writing is enough. I'll probably wake up tomorrow and realize what a stupid question this is, I'm barely functioning at the moment. Thanks for answering though!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests