{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week4 - Running head WEEK 4 ASSIGNMENT 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running head: WEEK 4 ASSIGNMENT 1 Week 4 Assignment: Critical Legal Thinking Case 6.7, page 171 & Critical Legal Thinking Case 7.7, page 201 Jeremy Doncouse Mountain State University
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running head: WEEK 4 ASSIGNMENT 2 Critical Legal Thinking Case 6.7 Sufficiency of a Writing : Is Knight correct? Knight is not correct. The Statute of Frauds requires that the sale of certain items, including the sale of good over $500, have a written contract (Cheeseman & Reed, page 155, 2009). Where Knight is mistaken is his interpretation of the law’s view of a written contract. The law doesn’t require that a contract be written by a lawyer, in fact, “any writing—including letters, telegrams, invoices, sales receipts, checks, and handwritten agreements written on scraps of paper—can be an enforceable contract under” the law of formality of writing (Cheeseman & Reed, page 162, 2009). This means that the written agreement drafted during their meeting fulfills the Statute of Frauds and the formality of writing. Moreover, the full signature of the parties is not even required. The parties involved
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}