Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 16
THE WRITING REQUIREMENT
IN OUR DIGITAL WORLD
16-1A. Statute of Frauds
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 cir-
cumstances a plaintiff’s detrimental reliance on, or partial performance of, an oral agreement to
convey property may estop a defendant from pleading the Statute of Frauds as a defense.
16-2A. Statute of Frauds
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 16
16-3A. Statute of Frauds
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 general rule (in New York): “The fact that [it] is improbable, or almost impossible, that
16-4A. Parol evidence
The court allowed the admission of extrinsic evidence. The court pointed out that extrinsic
evidence is admissible to show that a written contract that looks clear is actually ambiguous, if
there is “either contractual language on which to hang the label of ambiguous or some yawning
void * * * that cries out for an implied term. Extrinsic evidence should not be used to add terms
16-5A. Oral contracts
The issue centers on whether the alleged contract could possibly be performed within one year.
If the contract could not be performed within one year, then it would have to be in writing to be
16-6A. The parol evidence rule
The state intermediate appellate court held that Grove’s payment of $1,000 to Stanfield fully
discharged his obligation. The court reversed the lower court’s judgment and entered a
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 16 B-3
16-7A. The parol evidence rule
On Vision’s breach of contract claim, the court granted du Pont’s motion for summary judgment.
The court pointed to the language of the integration clause in the parties’ written contracts:
16-8A. Oral contracts
The court concluded that MacDonald failed to prove the existence of an oral contract, and ruled
in Pinto’s favor. MacDonald appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which reversed the
lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The appellate court explained, “In
the present case, the plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of an oral contract because the
16-9A. The parol evidence rule
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 a state intermediate appellate court, arguing in part that the lower court
should not have considered evidence of the parties’ negotiations. The appellate court held that
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 16
nature of the consideration supporting a contract.” In this case, the “evidence was not intended
to vary any of the terms of the written Purchase Agreement. Rather, it was offered to show one
16–10A. Contracts involving interests in land
No. Generally, a contract for a sale of land must be in writing and state the essential terms (such
as location and price) and describe the property with sufficient clarity to allow the terms to be
