Doncouse_Jeremy_Week4

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

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 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 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 laws view of a written contract. The law doesnt require that a contract be written by a lawyer, in fact, any writingincluding letters, telegrams, invoices, sales receipts, checks, and handwritten agreements written on scraps of papercan 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 formality of writing....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/08/2011 for the course LEGAL 297 taught by Professor Unknown during the Spring '10 term at Mountain State.

Page1 / 3

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week4 - Running head: WEEK 4 ASSIGNMENT 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online