ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 15
THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS—
WRITING REQUIREMENT
AND ELECTRONIC RECORDS
15-1A. Statute of Frauds
(Chapter 15—Pages 293–295)
Yes. The state intermediate appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, concluding that Nessralla’s
claim had no merit. The appellate court acknowledged that under some circumstances a plaintiff’s
15-2A. Statute of Frauds
(Chapter 15—Page 295)
Yes. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court ex–
plained that detrimental action and justifiable reliance on an oral promise may be sufficient to override
application of the Statute of Frauds and compel enforcement of the promise. Quoting Section 139(1) of
the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, the court held that “[t]he absence of a written contract cannot
defeat a claim for relief when injustice to a promisee who has reasonably and justifiably relied on a
B-64 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 15
15-3A. Statute of Frauds
(Chapter 15—Page 291)
The court ruled that the oral agreement was “outside the ambit of the Statute of Frauds because the
agreement, by its terms, was not incapable of performance within one year.” The court stated the
15-4A. Parol evidence
(Chapter 15—Page 297)
The court allowed the admission of extrinsic evidence. The court pointed out that extrinsic evidence is
15-5A. The one-year rule
(Chapter 15—Page 291)
Yes. The court held that the parties could fully perform their oral contract within one year from the date
15-6A. Oral contracts
(Chapter 15—Page 291)
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 15 B-65
15-7A. The parol evidence rule
(Chapter 15—Page 297)
The state intermediate appellate court held that Grove’s payment of $1,000 to Stanfield fully discharged
15-8A. The parol evidence rule
(Chapter 15—Page 300)
On Vision’s breach of contract claim, the court granted du Pont’s motion for summary judgment. The
15-9A. Oral contracts
(Chapter 15—Page 295)
The court concluded that MacDonald failed to prove the existence of an oral contract, and ruled in
B-66 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 15
there was a meeting of the minds. Only now, subsequent to contract formation, do the parties’
15-10A. The parol evidence rule
(Chapter 15—Pages 297 & 300)
The court considered evidence of the parties’ negotiations, determined from that evidence that Krieg’s
alleged “right of residency” had not been part of the deal, and ruled in Hieber’s favor. Krieg appealed to