Doncouse_Jeremy_Week6

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week6 - Running Head: WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. 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

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 6 ASSIGNMENT 1 Week 6 Assignment: Critical Legal Thinking Case 10.6 and 11.6 Jeremy Doncouse Mountain State University Running Head: WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT 2 Running Head: WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT 3 Critical Legal Thinking Case 10.6: Open Terms . Has a valid sales contract been formed? This is a complicated subject. Cagle had several dealings with Schmieding in the past where we are to assume that similar transactions took place. While the statute of frauds requires that the sale of goods costing more than $500 should be in writing there are provisions which allow the wronged party to be exempt from the statue of frauds when a contract that should have been in writing wasn’t in writing. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply in this case to prevent the application of the statute of frauds because, in my opinion, the three criteria are met: 1) the promise of purchase by Schmieding caused the action of Cagle, plus he didn’t seek anyone else to buy his crop, 2) there was obvious...
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 / 4

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week6 - Running Head: WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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