lecture notes ch. 15

Lecture notes ch 15 - Chapter15 Title:BusLawSeal.eps Creator:Adobe Illustrator(R)13.0 Preview:ThisEPS picturewasnotsaved withapreview(TIFFor

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 15 The Statute of Frauds— Writing Requirement C HAPTER O UTLINE I. The Origins of the Statute of Frauds To be enforceable, certain contracts must be in writing (even if both parties acknowledge an  oral contract, it may not be enforced).  The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide  reliable   evidence   of   these   contracts—a   writing   signed   by   the   party   against   whom  enforcement is sought.  This was the purpose of the Statute of Frauds enacted by the English  parliament in 1677, and is the purpose of the various statutes of frauds in effect in the  United States today. II. Contracts That Fall within the Statute of Frauds
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
A. C ONTRACTS I NVOLVING I NTERESTS IN L AND Contracts for the sale of land—including physical objects that are permanently attached  to it (buildings, fences, trees, minerals, timber)—and for the transfer of other interests  in land (such as mortgages) must be in writing. B. T HE O NE -Y EAR R ULE A contract that cannot, by its own terms, be performed within one year from the date it  was formed must be in writing to be enforceable.  The one-year period begins to run the  day after the contract is made.  Performance must be objectively impossible.  Emphasize  that  even if improbable, if performance within a year is possible, a contract need not be in writing . C ASE S YNOPSIS Case 15.1: Sawyer v. Mills Melbourne Mills promised to reward his paralegal, Barbara Sawyer, for her help in instituting class  actions. In June 2001, Mills orally agreed to pay Sawyer $1,065,000 in monthly installments of $10,000,  until paid in full, Nothing was signed. Over the next few months, Mills paid Sawyer $165,000. When the  payments stopped, Sawyer filed a suit against Mills in a Kentucky state court. The court ruled in Mills’s  favor. Sawyer appealed. A state intermediate appellate affirmed. “[W]hen it is contemplated by the parties that the contract  is not to be performed within the year, regardless of whether it was possible of performance within that  time, the contract comes within the inhibition of [the Statute of Frauds]. .  .  . Sawyer and Mills clearly  anticipated that the bonus would be paid over a series of one hundred and seven (107) months from the  making of the agreement on June 25, 2001. As this period is more than one year, the statute of frauds  applies to bar enforcement of the agreement.” ..................................................................................................................................................
Background image of page 2
Notes and Questions If Sawyer had proved that Mills had the resources to pay the total amount of the alleged bonus immediately, or if Sawyer had shown that she had entirely fulfilled her side of the bargain with respect to the alleged bonus agreement, would the court have been more likely to rule in Sawyer’s favor?
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/05/2011 for the course LAW 3000 taught by Professor Ms.zarac.sette during the Spring '11 term at Hawaii Pacific.

Page1 / 17

Lecture notes ch 15 - Chapter15 Title:BusLawSeal.eps Creator:Adobe Illustrator(R)13.0 Preview:ThisEPS picturewasnotsaved withapreview(TIFFor

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