Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 16 - Writing
CHAPTER 16
WRITING
I. OBJECTIVES
This chapter is designed to acquaint students with the circumstances under which a contract must be in
writing. It is also designed to teach them about the operation of the parol evidence rule and the basic
rules of contract interpretation. After reading the chapter and attending class, a student should be able
to:
A. List the contracts that must be evidenced by a writing under the Statute of Frauds.
B. Explain the exceptions to the Statute of Frauds.
C. Explain how to satisfy the Statute of Frauds under both the common law and UCC.
D. Explain the parol evidence rule and the exceptions to the rule.
II. ANSWER TO INTRODUCTORY PROBLEM
A. No. This was a contract to answer for the debt of another (a collateral contract) and was within the
statute of frauds. This problem is based on the case of First National Bank in Clarksville v. Moore,
628 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982). In that case, the court held that the main purpose doctrine
did not apply to take the case outside of the statute of frauds because Moore had made the promise
for his own benefit.
B. To satisfy the statute of frauds, a memorandum in writing signed by Moore would have been
necessary.
C. That depends on the nature of the promise, the nature of the writing, and when the promise
was made. The essential promise to pay the debt of another, of course, must be evidenced by
a writing because of the statute of frauds. The parol evidence rule is a concern if the promise
to pay the debt of another was evidenced by a writing and the bank is seeking to enforce
some other oral promise. If the oral promise was made before an integrated writing was
created, the parol evidence rule would bar evidence to add to, alter, or contradict that writing
(subject to the exceptions enumerated in the text). If the writing was only partially integrated,
however, a consistent additional promise could be admitted into evidence. If the promise was
made after the writing was signed, the oral promise could be admitted into evidence and
possibly enforced.
D. Although Moore has the legal right not to pay because of the statute of frauds, he may still have
the ethical duty to pay the debt. Under a deontological approach, keeping one’s word and
respecting another’s property rights have ethical value in themselves. It would be difficult to do a
utilitarian analysis without more facts, but the question would be whether there would be a net
benefit to those affected by Moore’s action. On the surface, it seems unlikely that anyone beside
Moore would be benefited by his refusal to pay the debt.
III. SUGGESTIONS FOR LECTURE PREPARATION
A. Introduction
1. Discuss the variety of functions that writing performs for contracting parties. How can we
fulfill those purposes in e-commerce transactions? You might wish to discuss some of the
statutory proposals that attempt to lay the foundation for accomplishing the functions of
writing in electronic transactions.
2. Discuss the history of the statute of frauds. Students might enjoy the story about the
"contract" for the sale of Fiste, the fighting cock, which was the cause celebre that stimulated
the enactment the first statute of frauds.
16-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 16 - Writing
3. Discuss the fact that, contrary to most peoples’ understanding, our legal system does not
require all contracts to be in writing. Why not?
4. Briefly preview the types of contracts that are within the statute of frauds. Note that the
one-year, land, goods, and suretyship or collateral contract provision have the greatest
significance today.
5. Contrast the approach to writing under the CISG (The Global Business Environment, p.
458) with that of U.S. law.
B. Effect of Noncompliance with the Statute of Frauds
1. Discuss the effect of noncompliance with the statute of frauds. Make it clear that
noncompliance with the statute does not make the contract illegal, and that the statute
does not provide a basis for rescinding a contract that has already been performed.
C. Contracts Within the Statute of Frauds
1. Collateral Contracts
a. Explain what a collateral contract is. Refer to the diagram on p. 458 or make a diagram of
a typical collateral contract on the blackboard. Indicate the positions of the guarantor,
principal debtor, and obligee, and point out which of the promises is within the statute of
frauds. Distinguish collateral contracts from the various original contracts that often
involve three-party transactions (e.g., novations, joint liability).
Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates (p. 458): (Note to instructors: The 15th edition contained the
opinion of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. The decision in the 16th edition is that of
the Supreme Court of Texas, which reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed
Yates’s case.)
Olis, a former officer of Dynegy, was indicted on multiple counts of securities fraud, mail
and wire fraud, and conspiracy because of his work on a financial transaction while he
was working for Dynegy. The Dynegy board passed a resolution that it would advance
attorney’s fees and expenses to certain officers and directors who were under
investigation. Olis hired Yates to defend him, telling him that Dynegy would be paying
the fees. Yate’s clerk allegedly confirmed this with Dynegy counsel. Dynegy paid part of
the fees but refused to pay the last installment, and Yates sued Dynegy. The issue was
whether the fee arrangement with Dynegy was a collateral contract within the statute of
frauds, or whether it was a primary obligation that did not require a writing. The Supreme
Court of Texas held that it was a collateral contract, that the main purpose exception did
not apply, and that in the absence of a suitable writing, Dynegy’s promise was not
enforceable against it.
Points for Discussion: Don’t the facts here suggest that Dynegy made a primary promise
to pay, not merely a secondary promise that it would pay if Olis didn’t? The fact that Olis
also made a primary promise to pay doesn’t necessarily make Dynegy’s promise
secondary in nature, does it? Walk the students through the main purpose exception to
the writing requirement (assuming, as the court did, that this was a collateral contract).
Do the students agree with the court’s rejection of that exception? Do they agree with the
majority’s decision or, instead, with the dissenting judge’s analysis?
Example: Introductory Problem.
b. Explain the main purpose exception. Note that it is one of the most frequently litigated
doctrines involving the statute of frauds.
Additional Examples: Problem Case #4 and White Stag v. Wind Surfing, Inc., 679 P.2d
312 (Or. Ct. App. 1984) (creditor's oral promise to supplier to guarantee payment by a
debtor was enforceable under the main purpose exception). Contrast with the
Introductory Problem.
2. Creations and Transfers of Interests in Land
16-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 16 - Writing
a. Explain that any creation or transfer of an interest in real property is within the statute of
frauds. If your students have not studied real property, you will probably need to define
what is included in the terms "land" and "real property." Note that this provision of the
statute of frauds covers the sale of a wide variety of interests in land, not just full
ownership--e.g., easements, mortgages, long-term leases.
b. Distinguish contracts that involve land but do not involve the creation or transfer of an
interest in land. For example, a contract to build a building would not be within the land
provision of the statute of frauds, but a contract to sell the building would be.
c. Discuss the exception for full performance by the vendor. Explain what full performance
by the vendor would be.
Explain the part performance (action in reliance) exception. Discuss the fact that this
exception serves the basic purpose of the statute of frauds because the buyer's actions are
probative of the existence of a contract; it also permits the court to protect the buyer's
reliance. Point out that the part performance exception allows the vendee to enforce the
contract through specific performance. Give examples of some situations in which a
vendee's actions in reliance would be sufficient to enforce an oral contract. Note that
payment alone is not sufficient to justify enforcement of the contract (although the buyer
could get restitution of the money he had paid).
Example: Problem Case #6.
3. Contracts that Cannot Be Performed within One Year
a. Explain the one-year provision. Illustrate how time is computed in determining whether a
contract falls within this provision.
Examples:
1) On May 1, 2015, Wyatt contracts to work for Wilson for an indefinite period of time.
Wyatt eventually works for Wilson for 20 years. CONTRACT IS NOT WITHIN
THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN PERFORMED
WITHIN ONE YEAR.
2) On May 1, 2015, Wyatt contracts to work for Wilson for 11 months, beginning
immediately. CONTRACT IS NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS
BECAUSE IT CAN BE FULLY PERFORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE
DATE ON WHICH IT WAS MADE.
3) On May 1, 2015, Wyatt contracts to work for Wilson for one year, beginning June 1,
2015. CONTRACT IS WITHIN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS BECAUSE IT
CANNOT BE FULLY PERFORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON
WHICH IT WAS MADE. (Note that according to the terms of the contract,
performance cannot be completed until June 1, 2016--more than one year from May
1, 2015).
b. Note that this provision of the statute of frauds is justified by the need to provide written
evidence of long-term contracts (because memories grow dim). However, this reasoning
does not seem very tenable, given the fact that a long-term contract such as the one in
example #1 above would not even be within the statute of frauds. In England, this
provision has been discarded, but in the United States it has been retained.
Linscott v. Shasteen (p. 462): The Supreme Court of Nebraska holds that a supposed
oral agreement by former partners of a law firm regarding fee division was not
subject to the statute of frauds writing requirement because at the time the agreement
was reached, full performance within a year was possible. The fact that performance
of the agreement stretched out over several years does not mean that full performance
within a year was impossible as of the time the agreement was formed.
Points for Discussion: Note the timing here and how long the parties performed under the
agreement. Emphasize, however, that the impossibility test governs the determination of
16-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 16 - Writing
whether a writing is required under the statute of frauds. Is full performance within a
year possible under the terms of the agreement, even if the parties think it is likely that
full performance will take more than a year? If it is possible (despite being unlikely), a
writing is not required. And, of course, as this case demonstrates, the fact that
performance took longer than a year does not mean that full performance within a year
was impossible under the terms of the agreement.
c. In most states, contracts for an indefinite time, such as contracts "for life" or "for
permanent employment" are not within the one-year provision of the statute of frauds,
since performance could be completed within one year.
1. New York and Illinois are two states that treat contracts for lifetime employment as
within the one-year provision of the statute of frauds. See, e.g., McInerny v. Charter
Golf, Inc., 680 N.E.2d 1347 (Sup. Ct. Ill. 1997).
d. Courts tend to construe the one-year provision narrowly, so that contracts that are
susceptible of completion within a year, even if completion within a year is not likely,
generally are held not to be within the statute of frauds.
Example: Problem Case #3.
4. Contracts for Sale of Goods of $500 or More
a. Note that this provision is found in § 2-201 of the UCC. Give some examples of typical
contracts to which it would apply. Emphasize that it applies only when the sales price is
$500 or more.
Example: Problem Case #1.
b. Discuss the requirements of UCC §2-209 as it relates to modifications of contracts within
the statute of frauds.
5. Promise of Executor or Administrator to Pay a Decedent's Debts Personally
a. Discuss the applicability of this provision and point out the similarity between it and the
collateral contract provision.
6. Contracts in Which Marriage is the Consideration
a. Discuss the nature and applicability of this provision. Point out that no writing is required in
situations involving mutual promises to marry.
D. Requirements of the Statute of Frauds
1. Explain the requirements for the writing. Distinguish a memorandum from a written contract,
and emphasize that a complete written contract is not required by most states to meet the
statute of frauds. The writing may not even be intended to be a contract at all. Note that in
some cases, the writing sufficient to meet the statute of frauds was a letter repudiating the
contract. Note also that the writing can be created at any time up to the time that the lawsuit is
filed.
a. Discuss the requirement of signature by the "party to be charged." Emphasize that while
it is desirable to have signatures of both parties on the writing, the signature of the party
to be charged is a minimum requirement. Note also that when the writing is signed by
only one of the parties, you have a situation where the contract can be enforced only by
one of the parties (the one who didn't sign).
b. Discuss the legal meaning of “signature.”
Example: Problem Case #10.
c. Cyberlaw in Action (p. 468): Discuss how writing requirements apply to contracts
transacted electronically. Discuss the application of E-Sign and UETA. Further resources
about E-Sign and UETA are plentiful on the web.
16-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 16 - Writing
d. Discuss the basic requirements for the content of the writing in contracts governed by the
common law of contracts and contracts governed by the UCC. Emphasize the UCC's
requirement that quantity be stated in the writing.
2. Show how different writings can be "tacked" together to satisfy the statute of frauds.
Example: Babdo Sales v. Miller-Wohl Co., 440 F.2d 962 (2d Cir. 1971).
3. Alternative Means of Satisfying the Statute of Frauds in Contracts for the Sale of Goods
a. Discuss why the drafters of the Code provided for alternative means of satisfying the
statute of frauds. What is the underlying assumption? Why haven't the legislatures
amended the statute of frauds to allow alternative means of satisfying all of the
provisions?
Green Garden Packaging Co., Inc. v. Schoenmann Produce Company, Inc. (p. 468):
Green Garden was a supplier of Shoenmann’s. When Shoenmann was preparing a bid to
provide food for a school district, it asked Green Garden for its information and product
specifications in exchange for its promise to use Green Garden exclusively if it got the
contract. It got the contract, but didn’t purchase Green Garden products and shared Green
Garden’s information with other suppliers. Green Garden sued for breach of contract and
Shoenmann defended based on the goods provision of the statute of frauds. The court
considered the alternative ways of satisfying § 2-201 and found that none of them
applied, so the contract was unenforceable
Points for Discussion: Why was Green Garden’s attempt to use the part performance
exception unsuccessful? Would it have a good argument that providing the confidential
information was payment, which was accepted in exchange for the promised exclusivity?
You may wish to discuss the ethics of Schoenmann’s alleged behavior.
b. Explain and give examples of the four other ways (besides meeting the writing
requirement) of satisfying § 2-201. Note that all of these provisions have something in
common: they all provide fairly persuasive evidence that a contract was made.
Example: Problem Case #1.
c. Note that the merchant's memo provision requires a writing that satisfies the statute of
frauds in all respects except that it is signed by the charging party instead of the party to
be charged.
d. Students often have trouble with the merchant's memo exception. It will be helpful to
take the class through an example of two business people making a deal over the
telephone and one of them following it up with a confirmatory letter. Also, students often
confuse the complicated provisions of this exception with the provisions of § 2-207(2)
(because both refer to a person's objection to terms), so it may be worthwhile for you to
warn them against this possible confusion.
e. Note that the other provisions for alternative ways of satisfying the Code statute of frauds
permit completely oral contracts to be enforced, such as when the party to be charged
admits the contract in court.
E. Promissory Estoppel and the Statute of Frauds
1. Discuss promissory estoppel as a possible way around the statute of frauds. (You may need to
review promissory estoppel briefly and to give an example of how it could be applied in the
context of a statute of frauds issue). Note that there is an active controversy among courts as
to whether it should be applicable. Some courts fear that a promissory estoppel exception
would essentially "eat up" the rule of the statute of frauds.
F. The Parol Evidence Rule
1. Set up an example to show how the parol evidence rule would operate. E.g., John goes
shopping to buy a computer. The salesperson at Compuzone, a retailer of computers, tells
16-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 16 - Writing
John that if he buys a computer from Compuzone, Compuzone will service the computer for
free for one year after the warranty expires. John buys the computer from Compuzone, paying
a slightly higher price than he would pay elsewhere because he is attracted by the fact that
Compuzone services its own computers. John signs a contract that says nothing about
Compuzone's obligation to service the computer, and in fact states that the written contract is
a complete and final statement of the parties' agreement. The day after the warranty expires,
the computer goes down, and Compuzone refuses to make a free repair. Show how the parol
evidence rule would be applied in this situation. Ask what John should have done to protect
himself.
2. Explain the basic provisions of the parol evidence rule and the ideas underlying the rule.
Jacco & Associates v. HVAC, Inc. (p. 472): The Ohio Court of Appeals holds that the parol
evidence rule bars evidence of a supposed term specifying a particular delivery date, where
the parties’ written agreement specifically stated that no particular delivery date was
guaranteed.
Points for Discussion: The case furnishes a fairly clear, easy-to-understand example of the
parol evidence rule’s operation. Ask the students about each necessary element of the parol
evidence rule (written contract that reasonably appears to be complete integration; party’s
argument that prior term not appearing in written contract was nevertheless part of the
agreement; prior term would add to, alter, or contradict terms of written contract). Stress the
message of the parol evidence rule: If you believe a certain term supposedly agreed to before
the signing of the written contract is part of the deal and that term is important to you, be sure
it shows up in the written document.
Additional Example: Problem Case #5.
3. Ethics in Action (p. 474): The parol evidence rule makes it at least possible for a person
with stronger bargaining power to avoid legal obligation for promises made to him before
the signing of a written contract. As such, it can allow unethical behavior. The exceptions
to the parol evidence rule, modern concepts of unconscionability, and some of the rules of
interpretation, however, operate to reduce the possibility for abuse.
4. Students sometimes get the parol evidence rule mixed up with the statute of frauds. You might
want to distinguish the two. Make clear that the parol evidence rule applies only when there is
a written contract and does not depend upon whether the writing was required under the
statute of frauds.
5. Discuss the circumstances under which parol evidence can be admitted to prove the existence
of additional terms that are consistent with the rest of the contract. Explain and give an
example of a merger clause.
6. Discuss the exceptions to the parol evidence rule. Note that these are situations in which the
writing is not the best evidence of the parties' agreement or in which the parol evidence is not
being used to contradict the writing.
G. Interpretation of Contracts
1. Discuss courts' basic methods of interpreting contracts. It would be helpful to present to the
class a sample contract clause that raises interpretation problems to illustrate some of the
problems inherent in interpreting a contract. Have students interpret the meaning of the
clause, and then discuss what assumptions they made and what "rules" they invented.
2. Discuss some of the specific rules of construction that are used to resolve common
interpretation problems.
IV. RECOMMENDED REFERENCES
A. B. E. ALLAN FARNSWORTH, FARNSWORTH ON CONTRACTS (3rd ed. 2004).
16-6
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 16 - Writing
B. Michael B. Metzger & Michael J. Phillips, Promissory Estoppel and Section 2-201 of the U.C.C.,
26 VILL. L. REV. 63 (1980).
16-7
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
