Psychology Chapter 11 Homework Frauds Writing One Party Has Made Part

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

CHAPTER 11

WRITTEN CONTRACTS

Answers to Learning Objectives

(Page 111)

1. The Statute of Frauds requires contracts (a) for the sale of land, (b) that cannot be performed

within one year, (c) to pay the debt of another, (d) of an administrator to personally pay the

debts of the estate, and (e) in consideration of marriage, to be in writing.

Lesson Outline

1. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to prove the contents of oral contracts.

2. The Statute of Frauds, passed in England in 1677, listed classes of contracts which had to be

in writing. Most states have adopted with but slight variations the sections containing the lists

of such contracts.

4. The contract itself does not need to be in writing if a note or memorandum setting forth all

the terms of the contract is signed by the party against whom the claim for breach of promise

is made.

5. Most states have some contracts other than those listed in the Statute of Frauds that must be

in writing. The most common ones are contracts for the sale of securities, agreements to pay

a commission to real estate brokers, and a new promise to extend the statute of limitations.

Comments on Cases

(p. 113) The court held that when Miller filed the Declaration he had the right to receive title to

the second parcel upon payment of the purchase price so he did have an interest in the

Chapter 11 Written Contracts

(p. 114) The court pointed out that if the promises in an oral agreement may possibly be

performed within a year the Statute of Frauds did not apply. Here the time frame ran

from less than a year so it could have been performed within that time. Henry v.

Blankenship, 621 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. Ct. App.)

(p. 116) An agreement to return an engagement ring if the marriage does not take place is clearly

an agreement made in contemplation of marriage and covered by the Statute of Frauds.

Curtis v. Anderson, 106 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. Ct. App.)

Answers to Questions

(Page 118)

1. Provided it includes all the terms and provisions of the agreement, a written contract has the

advantages over an oral contract that its existence cannot be denied and that its terms can be

ascertained.

4. A contract that cannot be performed in one year must be in writing to be enforceable since it

might easily be forgotten before the contract is completed. To minimize the need to resort to

the courts because the parties do not remember the terms of the contract such contracts must

6. When a party sues to enforce an alleged contract, the Statute of Frauds requires that the

agreement of the parties be evidenced either by a writing signed by both parties, or that there

is a note or memorandum in writing signed by the party against whom the claim for breach of

contract is made.

to show the existence of trade customs that are to be regarded as forming part of the contract.

Answers to Case Problems

(Page 118)

1. Yes. Even though Myaer did not sign the subsequent contract, by continuing his

employment he accepted Nodak’s unilateral offer which changed the commission terms.

Since the later contract provided for no bonuses, but only reductions and was complete,

Myaer’s affidavit could not alter the terms of the contract. Myaer v. Nodak Mut. Ins.Co., 812

N.W.2d 345 (N.D.)

(Idaho)

4. No. The court found that the written release was complete and unambiguous. The MOU and

the subsequent oral agreement fell under the clear language of the release that covered “any

and all” claims in connection with “the organization, development and operation” of WVSC.

Daines v. Vincent, 190 P.3d 1269 (Utah)

5. No. Since Mary’s promise was an oral agreement to pay Glenn’s debt it is not enforceable

under the Statute of Frauds. Since Mary received no benefit from the loans she was not

liable under the exception to the Statute of Frauds. Page v. Gulf Coast Motors, 903 So.2d

148 (Ala. Civ.App.)

6. Yes. The court found that the signed addendum of June 16 was necessary to satisfy the

Statute of Frauds, but it was not the actual contract between the parties. It was simply

Chapter 11 Written Contracts

structure” was just the dam or also the lake. Since the written contract was ambiguous, oral

testimony could be admitted to explain the contract. Fowler v. Lincoln County Conservation

Dist., 15 P.3d 502 (Okla.)