BUS311_chapter_05

A

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

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

Unformatted text preview: c signatures satisfied the statute, but it had noted that other states had relaxed the signature requirement considerably to accommodate various forms of electronic communication. California law also provided that typed names at the end of telegrams were adequate as signatures. The court concluded that there was no meaningful difference between telegrams and an e-mail, and found that the Bucher signature could satisfy the statute of frauds requirements. The court remanded the case for trial on the remaining questions of fact. Holding: The contract is clearly within the statute of frauds, and thus a writing is required. The fax could legally meet the requirements. Questions for Discussion 1. Why would this contract need to be in writing? Which one of the five types is it? 2. Why did the court decline to decide whether a contract existed between Lamle and Mattel? 3. Do you think the court’s finding, that the e-mail could satisfy the writing requirement, makes sense? Why or why not? Case Study: Sherman v....
View Full Document

This test prep was uploaded on 04/09/2014 for the course BUS 311 taught by Professor Parker during the Spring '10 term at Ashford University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online