This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: would be unfair for Jean-Michel to retain the benefit because Rosenfeld will be out of the $1000 and the painting that he was going to purchase. Rosenfeld argues even though the sale of the good was more than $500, in this case $12,000 fraud was no committed because of the written statement by Jean-Michel, and his acceptance of partial payment of $1000 from Rosenfeld. Jean-Michel has not argument for the reception of payment. Jean-Michel has no argument on acceptance. Conclusion No the contract between Rosenfeld and Jean-Michel did not fail, because it did not meet the elements of status of Frauds, as a written contract was present and a payment of $1000 was made by Rosenfeld to keep promise with Jean-Michel....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.
- Spring '11
- Business Law