GOVT 404
CASE STUDY PAPER ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
One of the important legal doctrines you studied in this Module: Week is the Statute of Frauds.
The Statute of Frauds is sometimes seen as a controversial legal rule. This assignment will
provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of the Statute of Frauds,
apply that understanding by explaining its role in a legal decision, evaluate the value of the
doctrine of the Statute of Frauds in contract law, and develop your ability to analyze and write
within the conventions of the legal profession. This assignment takes the form of a legal memo,
a common form of document in the legal profession. A Legal Memorandum Template has
been provided to you in the Case Study Paper Resources section within the Case Study Paper
Assignment page.
INSTRUCTIONS
For this assignment:
•
•
You must prepare a memo that is 2àsingle-spaced pages in current Bluebook format.
You must also include at least 2 references from the course textbook, case law, or other
legal authority sources in Bluebook format.
Explain the what the Statute of Frauds is, when the Statute of Frauds applies in contract
law generally, and what policies the Statute of Frauds is designed to serve.
Explain how the Statute of Frauds was applied in the courtàdecision in Boone v. Coe,
153 Ky. 233, 154 S.W. 900, 901 (1913). State whether you agree with or disagree with
the courtàdecision and justify your decision. Discuss whether there is a moral basis for
the Statute of Frauds doctrine. Include in your discussion whether the Statute of Frauds
encourages the integrity and sanctity of promise-making and promise-keeping. Justify
your conclusion with legal and biblical principles.
Write your paper in the form of legal office memo, using the template provided. Ensure
that your memo is well organized and logical. Write for clarity, develop your position
fully, and use the legal terminology you encounter correctly. Proofread carefully before
submitting your final product.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
In this module, we learned about some contract defenses designed to ensure the parties freely and knowingly assented to the contract. This week, we’ll learn about some additional defenses that have less to do with ensuring that ascent is freely given. These defenses reflect policy decisions, that some kinds of contracts just should not be enforced or should only be enforced if they’re memorialized in a sufficient written agreement. The unconscionability defense is designed to provide relief to contracting parties where the terms of the contract or so one-sided, that judicial intervention is required to prevent oppression and unfair surprise. Some courts have assessed whether a contract is unconscionable by looking at two kinds of unconscionability. Substantive unconscionability, and procedural unconscionability. Substantive unconscionability looks at how burdensome the terms of the contract are at the time the contract is entered into. Next, procedural unconscionability assesses where there is some unfair bargaining power between the parties and explains why a party might agree to such substantively unconscionable terms. Most courts have decided that some degree of both substantive procedural unconscionability is required for the defense to be successful. The cord and Williams versus Walker Thomas Furniture company require that in order for a court to conclude a contract or contractual term is unconscionable, it must ordinarily conclude that there was an absence of meaningful choice, sometimes referred to as procedural unconscionability, and contract terms, which are unreasonably favorable to the other party, sometimes referred to as substantive unconscionability. Accordingly, it’s only an extraordinary cases where there is both a high degree of unfairness in bargaining power and a high degree of unfairness in terms of the contract. When that is observe, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, refused to enforce the unconscionable term, or limit the enforcement of the unconscionable turn. Or to have identified several kinds of contracts that are invalid for public policy reasons. First, illegal contracts are generally void. The courts will not come to the aid of a party who’s contracted to do an illegal act. The question of whether a contract as one to commit an illegal act is not always clear. So for example, if a contracting party is supposed to be licensed in order to operate in its particular line of business. And let’s It’s license lapse. That fact does not necessarily mean that the contract that party makes is illegal. Further, it does not necessarily mean the contract that party makes is unenforceable, where a contract is not statutorily prohibited. Courts apply a balancing test to determine whether a court should intervene and the parties contract dispute or not. The test balances the public policy against and enforcement and whether that policy significantly outweighs the interests in enforcing the contract. While not illegal, there are other subjects that parties contract regarding where the courts have identified public policy reasons for limiting enforcement. One airs contracts that constitute a restraint on trade. For example, where an employer contracts with an employee for the employee not to work for another employer for a period of time after the conclusion of the employee’s employment. Courts sometimes limited enforcement of such contracts. Evaluating such noncompete agreements requires balancing the legitimate interests of the employers and employees to ensure the agreement is reasonable. While the tests vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the courts consider the scope of goods or services subject to the agreement. The a geographic scope, scope of the agreement, and the duration of the agreement. If the agreement goes too far, the court will either limit the force of the agreement to more reasonable boundaries or strike the non-compete agreement entirely. A third category of defenses based on policy concerns is the statute of frauds. Each jurisdiction generally has its own statutes that require that certain categories of contracts have to be in writing in order to be enforceable. A good general rule is that contracts do not have to be written down in order to be enforced. If the party seeking to enforce the contract can prove it was made, then it can be enforced so long as the elements of manifestation of a cent were in place, a basis of enforcement like consideration exists. However, there are a few categories of contracts that cannot be enforced unless they are memorialized in an appropriate written document. Those categories are generally described in a statute of frauds adopted by a state’s legislature. Your textbook adopts for purpose of studying this question, a generic statute of frauds containing categories of contracts that can be found in virtually every state’s statute of frauds. We’ll work from that statute of frauds for discussion purposes, but recognize that most states have a more comprehensive list of categories of contracts that have to be in writing. The categories are contracts involving real property. Sure. You ship contracts, contracts, and consideration of marriage. Contracts that require more than one year to fully perform executory contracts to pay a state debts, contracts for the sale of goods of $500 or more. In addition to looking at each of these three categories, will consider just what kind of writing is necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds writing requirement will also consider some exceptions to the requirement of a writing and some rules that mitigate the sometimes harsh consequences of a court’s decision not to enforce a contract, but does not comply with the statute of frauds. Last, we’ll look at a special rule for contracts for the sale of goods under the UCC. The first category of the statute of frauds we’ll consider includes contracts for the sale of a real property land. Most real property transactions generally fall within the statute of frauds. This includes sales of property, leases, of property, mortgages, and other property interests that can be transferred. Many statutes exclude short-term leases from this requirement. The next category of the statute of frauds we’ll consider is the surety ship category. If a contract is a contract to serve as a Suri, it must be in writing to be enforceable unless an exception applies. The key to spotting this category is understanding what a surety ship is. Assure you ship. Generally be described as a promise by one person, the surety, to another person, the creditor, to fulfill the obligation of another, the debtor. In the event the debtor does not fulfill the obligation himself. One of the tricks to this category is that it only applies to surety ships and not some of the transactions that might seem to be surety ships bread or not. For example, if a person promises to a debtor to pay the amount owed by the debtor to the creditor. That transaction is not a surety ship. A surety ship requires that the surety make a promise to the creditor, not debtor. Contracts were part of the consideration is a promise to marry or within the statute of frauds. This category is generally not interpreted to encompass mutual promises to marry. Instead, it’s designed to require a writing when parties agree to make payments or transfers of property or otherwise modifying legal rights, where the consideration includes a promise of marriage. The next category of the statute of frauds requires that we embrace a very narrow definition of a one year contract. It only applies to a contract that bias terms cannot be fully performed by both parties in less than one year. This requires that we focus on a couple of aspects of the contract. First, the contract terms must be such that there’s no possibility that it might be completed, not breached in one year. The test is not one of probabilities or estimate or likelihood. It’s a function of what the agreement requires of the parties. If performance is not expressly preclude it in one year, then the contract is not a one year contract, and it’s therefore enforceable without a writing center. The contract must require performance by both parties, not just one outside of the one year from the date of the the date the contract was made. Accordingly, a contract to serve as an employee for two years is within this category of the statute of frauds because by its terms, both parties cannot completed in less than one year. Conversely, a lifetime employment contract, even one assented to by an employee with a long life expectancy can be fully performed in less than one year. The employee might die within one year. Accordingly, the lifetime employment contract is not within this category. Frauds and is enforceable even without a signed writing. If a contract falls within one or more of these categories of the statute of frauds, then it must be in writing to be enforceable. Just what constitutes a sufficient writing is an important issue. First, the writing has to contain the essential terms, but not every term of the contract and be signed by the party against whom it is to be enforced. Not all of the parties. The document has to be signed or authenticated. Frequently, the authentication is a signature, but other means of authenticating the writing will do sending a text from an account linked to the sender. A piece of paper with a letterhead or an email with an electronic signature will all satisfy the signature requirement. There’s one more category that only applies under the UCC for contracts for the sale of goods. Contracts for the sale of goods under the UCC have a specific provision that requires assigned writing and various exceptions if the contract is for the sale of goods of $500 or more. That provision is UCC two dash 20, one. This provision identifies another category of the contracts within the statute, a different writing requirement in some important exceptions requirement. The statute begins by setting out the requirement for the kind of writing that satisfies the statute. And importantly, it does not require that all of the essential terms be in the writing. Instead, the statute requires something less than the common-law standard. Ucc two dash 20, one only requires it’s quote, some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom it is sought, end quote. Further, it provides that the count of the quantity of goods shown in the writing. So quantity is an essential term to be contained in the writing. The second paragraph of 2, 2, 0, 1 describes what is frequently called exception to the rule. Remember the UCC applies to any contract for the sale of goods. However, some provisions like UCC two dash 205, the firm offer rule, and parts of UCC two dash 20 seven subparagraph to have special application to merchants. Ucc two dash 20 12 is another rule that has special application to merchants. In fact, like 22 07 to, it applies here as between merchants. Between merchants. That contract might require a writing, but it’s not signed by the party against whom is to be enforced a reasonable time after making the contract, one merchant can send a written confirmation sufficient against the sender. That is, it’s sufficient to indicate a contract for sale has been made between the parties and sign here by the party seeking to confirm the agreement. It that written confirmation is received by the other party and they have reason to know of its contents. It will satisfy the statute of frauds, even though it’s not signed by the party against whom it’s to be enforced unless that party makes a written objection to the confirmation within ten days after it is received. In addition to the merchant exception of UCC two dash 20 one. So Paragraph 2, UCC 2, 2 0, 1, 3 provides three specific exceptions to the requirement of a writing. First, there’s an exception for specially manufactured goods that are not suitable for resale. Second, there’s an exception for admissions made in court or court documents that a contract for sale was made, but only to the extent admitted. Third, we’re goods have been paid for or received and accepted. The contract is enforceable despite the absence of a writing. As we saw earlier, chords construe one-year contracts very narrowly. While this is not exactly an exception to the rule, we can think of it as a limitation on the application of the one-year rule. Courts will only find a contract is within the one-year category. When it’s expressed terms require that it take more than one year to fully perform. Accordingly. Applying this rule requires a fair degree of caution. Real property contracts can be enforced without a writing if there’s sufficient part performance of the contract when evaluating whether the parties part performance enough to provide evidence of the party’s intent to be bound. The court will consider the following actions. Payment of the contract price by the buyer, taking possession of the property by the buyer, and making improvements on the property by the buyer. As we saw earlier, courts take a strict view of surety ship contracts. They only apply when the contract fits into the pattern of a surety promising to a creditor to answer for the obligation of a debtor. This excludes several similar contracts like primary obligations, promises to be a co obligor, promises made to the debt Or rather than the creditor and Novation. Furthermore, there is a true exception called the main purpose or leading object exception. Under the main purpose exception, a surety agreement is outside the statute of frauds when the main purpose for the sureties promise to the creditor is made out of the sureties own self-interest, rather than some selfless act to assist the debtor. The statute of frauds can work some harsh results. It means that even in a case where there is offer acceptance and consideration, the court will not enforce the contract. Accordingly, courts have not only limited the application. Frauds, but also created exceptions to the rules that will remove some contracts from the statute of frauds and make them enforceable even when they’re not memorialized by assigned writing. Where a contract is fully performed by both parties know writing is required where a party relies on a promise that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, that parties reliance interests may be protected by the Court under the right circumstances. Last, as we’ll see in the next slide, restitution might be inappropriate remedy as well. Like the defenses we learned about last module, parties sometimes find that they have partially performed a contract ultimately determined unenforceable because it was unconscionable, unenforceable for public policy reasons, or failed to comply with the statute of frauds. Sometimes but not all the time. Such part performance leaves one party having received a benefit without paying for it. And since the contract is unenforceable, that party will have no contractual rights to enforce. In such circumstances, courts will require that the party, to the extent that they’ve been unjustly enriched, return the value of that benefit to the other party.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment