Chapter 16 – Writing
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES
1. No. The court determined whether the statute of frauds was satisfied under the merchant’s memo
exception. The sticking point was whether the farmer was a merchant within the meaning of the
2. No. Contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more are within the statute of frauds under §
2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Under the UCC, however, a writing signed by the
3. The court held that the statute of frauds did not apply to this case. The reason is that the one-
4. Yes. The case concerns the applicability of the leading object (main purpose) exception to the
statute of frauds. Wintersport argued that White’s oral guaranty was outside the statute of
frauds because White received a personal benefit from the guaranty due to his interest in
continuing the business of Millionaire.com. The court noted that “[a]n original promise
5. No. The written contract was the final, integrated contract, so the evidence of statements
made before the written contract was signed is barred by the parol evidence rule. The court
6. No. The court stated that an oral contract for the sale of real property can be enforceable if
the purchaser “(1) “pays the consideration”; (2) “takes possession of the property”; and (3)
7. Yes, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the parties’ written
agreement amounted to a complete integration, and that the parol evidence rule barred evidence of
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
8. No. The court stated that “evidence of the alleged oral agreement, which would contradict and
vary the terms of the written release, is precluded by the parol evidence rule.” The release was a
9. No. The court discussed the question whether the contract was original, in which case the statute
of frauds would not apply, or collateral. The court found no evidence that the promise was original
10. Yes. The case is governed by the UCC because it deals with a sale of goods. Under the UCC,
11. The court held that the contract fell within the one-year provision of the statute of frauds
because it could not be fully performed by both parties within one year (one year of
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.