Powerpoint from textbook Business Law - the ethical, global, and e-commerce environment to accompany BA 330 course at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
4. Learning Objectives
Significance of a writing in contract law
The Statute of Frauds
Contracts covered by the Statute of
Frauds and the requirements
The UCC & the Statute of Frauds
The Parole Evidence Rule
16 - 4
5. Basics
In general, a writing is not required to create
a legally enforceable contract
However, a writing is preferable to an oral
contract for a number of reasons: more
definite, signature provides authentication,
and use as evidence
Sometimes, a writing is required…
16 - 5
6. The Statute of Frauds
In 17th Century England,
the Statute of Frauds was
enacted to prevent fraud by
requiring written evidence
before enforcing certain
types of contracts
American states adopted
similar statutes
House of Lords, England
16 - 6
7. Consequences
If a covered contract does not satisfy the
requirements of the statute of frauds, the
contract is unenforceable
A person injured by the unenforceable
contract may pursue an action based on
quasi-contract or promissory estoppel
16 - 7
8. Covered Contracts
Collateral contracts
Contracts for real estate
Contracts for more than one year
Contracts for sale of goods over $500
Executor’s promise
Marriage as consideration
See the list on page 413 of the text
16 - 8
9. Covered Contracts:
Collateral Contracts
Collateral contracts in which a person
(guarantor) promises to perform an
obligation of another person (principal
debtor) to a third person (obligee)
xample: Jason is a
personal guarantor on
a loan from City Bank
to Jason’s sister, Mary
16 - 9
11. Exception to
Collateral Contract Rule
Under the main purpose or leading object rule,
no writing is required where the guarantor
makes a collateral promise for the main
purpose of obtaining personal economic
advantage
See Wintersport Ltd. v. Millionaire.com, Inc.
16 - 11
12. Wintersport Ltd. v.
Millionaire.com Inc.
Facts & Procedural History:
Wintersport Ltd. printed one issue of magazine
for Millionaire.com
They negotiated to print another issue, but order
and price cut due to magazine’s financial trouble
Concerned over creditworthiness, Leiter
(Wintersport) told Strong (Millionaire.com) that
Wintersport would only extend credit to
Millionaire.com if the firm paid a $10,000 down
payment and a stockholder (White) gave a
personal guaranty on the balance due
16 - 12
13. Wintersport Ltd. v.
Millionaire.com Inc.
Facts & Procedural History:
White (Millionaire.com) gave Leiter personal
guaranty via the phone and sent a $10,000 check
Millionaire.com failed to pay balance and
Wintersport sued Millionaire.com
Trial court entered judgment for Wintersport
against Millionaire.com and White, but White
appealed, arguing that the action should have
been dismissed because the statute of frauds
prevented the enforcement of his oral guaranty
16 - 13
14. Wintersport Ltd. v.
Millionaire.com Inc.
Issue and Legal Reasoning:
Does the statute of frauds prevent enforcement of
White’s oral guaranty?
An original promise – outside statute of frauds –
occurs when the promisor receives a direct benefit
from the promise
Wintersport did not show that White’s benefit
was anything more than an indirect incident of
share ownership
Reversed and dismissed in favor of White
16 - 14
15. Covered Contracts: Real Estate
Contracts for the transfer or sale of an
interest in real estate
Some states require a writing for leases
and certain easements on real property
Exception: if vendor fully performed on
the contract or vendee reasonably relied
on the contract to his/her detriment
Then statute of frauds does not apply
16 - 15
16. Covered Contracts:
One Year Rule
Bilateral contracts that cannot be performed
within a year from the date of their
formation (one year rule)
Is performance possible within year?
Probability of performance irrelevant
Example: Jack signs contract to consult
with Company X for 13 months – this
must be in writing
16 - 16
17. Schaadt v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.
Facts & Reasoning:
Schaadt fired by St. Jude before end of alleged
one-year employment contract and filed suit
Question is whether parties can fully perform
their obligations under contract within one
year if those obligations are not excused
Schaadt’s obligations begin after St. Jude’s
employment of Schaadt for one year
16 - 17
18. Schaadt v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.
Reasoning and Holding:
Since obligations cannot be
fulfilled within one year,
Statute of Frauds requires a
writing
St. Jude (party charged with
breach) did not sign the
contract, thus the contract is
unenforceable at St. Jude’s
option
16 - 18
19. Covered Contracts:
$500+ in Goods
UCC 2-201: contracts for the sale of goods for a
price of $500 or more
Includes agreements to modify existing sales
contracts if contract as modified is for a price
of $500 or more [UCC section 2–209(3)]
Example: Pam buys a refrigerator for $501,
thus a writing is required to be enforceable
No writing required for <$500 refrigerator
16 - 19
20. Other Covered Contracts
Though uncommon, the statute of frauds
requires a writing to evidence (a) contracts in
which an executor or administrator promises
to be personally liable for debt of an estate,
or (b) contracts in which marriage is the
consideration
16 - 20
21. Satisfying the Statute of Frauds
Most states require only a signed
memorandum of the parties’ agreement
stating the essential terms:
(a) identity of parties, (b) subject matter
identified with reasonable certainty, and (c)
signed by the party to be charged
Memorandum need not be made at the same
time the contract comes into being
16 - 21
22. Satisfying the Statute of Frauds
UCC 2–201: writing must be sufficient to
indicate a contract for sale has been made
between the parties, but must indicate the
quantity of goods to be sold
A sales receipt may satisfy the requirement
Sufficient writing includes: (a) confirmatory
memorandum between merchants, (b) part payment
or part delivery, (c) admission in pleadings or court,
and (d) specially manufactured goods
16 - 22
23. Jones v. The Baran Company
Facts:
Jones ordered a specially manufactured
automobile from dealership (Baran) with
$50,000 down-payment and signed form
Parties did not agree to actual price
Jones argued dealership agreed to “MSRP”
18+ months later, vehicle delivered and Baran
demanded market value and Jones refused
Baran returned deposit, then sold vehicle
16 - 23
24. Jones v. The Baran Company
Reasoning on Appeal:
Baran argued oral agreement violated Statute
of Frauds, but uncontroverted evidence
showed oral contract had been formed, with
the price term being MSRP
Baran admitted a contract was made for one
specially manufactured good, thus the oral
agreement was enforceable under the UCC § 2–
201(3)(b) exception to the Statute of Frauds
16 - 24
25. Cyberlaw
Electronic Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (E-Sign) of 2000 provides that
in interstate commerce transactions, an
electronic signature has the same legal effect
as a handwritten signature, and an
electronic contract has the same legal effect
as a traditionally-printed contract
16 - 25
26. The CISG & a Writing
The Convention on the
International Sale of
Goods does not require
that a contract be in
writing to be enforceable
A contract need not
take any particular
form, and can be
proven by any means
16 - 26
27. The Parol Evidence Rule
The parol evidence rule provides that, when
parties enter a written contract that they
intend as a complete integration (final
statement of agreement), a court will not
permit the use of evidence of prior or
contemporaneous statements to add to, alter,
or contradict the terms of the written
contract
16 - 27
28. More on Parol Evidence
UCC 2-202 includes parol evidence rule
Admissible parol evidence:
Additional terms in partially integrated
contracts
Explaining ambiguities
Circumstances invalidating contract
Existence of condition
Subsequent agreements
16 - 28
29. Carrow v. Arnold
Facts & Procedural History:
Arnold and Mitchell negotiated to purchase a
farm owned by Carrow, orally representing
that Carrow could continue to live on the farm
After executing the contract, Arnold and
Mitchell began plans for development
Carrow discovered the plans and told Arnold
he wanted out of the deal, but Arnold refused
Carrow filed suit to rescind the contract and
Arnold counterclaimed for enforcement
16 - 29
30. Carrow v. Arnold
Issue:
Is the agreement enforceable or unenforceable
due to fraud and misrepresentation?
Law Applied to Facts :
When a written contract is the final statement
of the parties’ agreement (a complete
integration), the parol evidence rule prohibits
the parties from introducing extrinsic evidence
of the agreement
Here, agreement is a final, integrated contract
16 - 30
31. Carrow v. Arnold
Law Applied to Facts and Holding:
Parol evidence rule bars admission of oral
promises and representations that are
inconsistent with its written terms, unless an
exception to the rule applies in this case
Carrow knew that provisions in proposed Agreement
seemed inconsistent with alleged oral promises
Contract neither ambiguous nor fraudulent,
thus the parties have entered a binding contract
16 - 31
33. Test Your Knowledge
True=A, False = B
All contracts must be in writing to be
enforceable.
A contract for the sale of a carpet for $499
must be in writing to be enforceable.
Jill orally promised the President of First
Bank to pay Jack’s debt to First Bank if Jack
defaulted on the note. Jack defaulted and Jill
must pay Jack’s debt.
16 - 33
34. Test Your Knowledge
True=A, False = B
Joey owes Chandler money, so Joey contracts
with LoanCo for a short-term loan. Chandler
orally gave his personal guaranty to LoanCo
that Joey would repay the loan. Joey
defaulted and Chandler must repay the loan
for Joey.
If a state law conflicts with the federal E-Sign,
the provisions of E-Sign prevail.
16 - 34
35. Test Your Knowledge
Multiple Choice
Parol evidence refers to:
(a) The evidence required to prove a case
(b) Written or spoken statements not contained
in the written contract
(c) The lack of evidence
E-Sign states that:
(a) An electronic signature has the same legal
effect as a handwritten signature.
(b) A contract in electronic form is not
enforceable unless proven with a hard copy
16 - 35
36. Test Your Knowledge
Multiple Choice
Mamie agreed to sell Susan her Picasso
painting. She wrote the name of the painting
and $600 on a napkin. Both Mamie & Susan
signed the napkin. Susan paid Mamie the
money and Mamie:
(a) May refuse to hand over the painting since
contract was on a napkin and is unenforceable
(b) Must give Susan the painting since the
contract satisfies the statute of frauds
16 - 36
37. Thought Question
Do the Statute of
Frauds and parol
evidence rule – legal
principles from the
1600s – still make
sense in today’s
commercial world?
16 - 37
Notes de l'éditeur
Contracts covered by the Statute of Frauds: 1. Collateral contracts in which a person promises to perform the obligation of another person. 2. Contracts for the sale of an interest in real estate. 3. Bilateral contracts that cannot be performed within a year from the date of their formation. 4. Contracts for the sale of goods for a price of $500 or more. 5. Contracts in which an executor or administrator promises to be personally liable for the debt of an estate. 6. Contracts in which marriage is the consideration.
See flowchart on page 422 of the text.
MSRP – manufacturer’s suggested retail price
Jones filed suit, moved for summary judgment, and trial court denied his motion; Jones appealed
Parol evidence literally means written or spoken statements not contained in the written contract
Hyperlink is to the case opinion on the Findlaw.com website. Prior to Arnold and Mitchell’s negotiations, Carrow had negotiated with The Nature Conservancy for sale of the farm. Arnold and Mitchell’s representations that Carrow could continue to live on the farm were material to Carrow. Testimony indicated that Arnold and Porter may not have actually wanted to develop the land, but “merely” desired to boost the market value and obtain a better offer from The Nature Conservancy.
Court opinion: “ Carrow alleges that the agreement was procured through fraud and misrepresentation. His allegation of fraud, however, consists entirely of the claim that Arnold made oral representations and promises before the execution of the written agreement and that such representations and promises have not been honored. Arnold contends that the agreement is an integrated agreement and the parol evidence rule bars consideration of earlier representations or promises that he allegedly made.” “ When a written contract is intended to be the final expression of the parties’ agreement, the parol evidence rule bars the introduction of evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral understandings that vary the written terms of the agreement.” “ Thus, to apply the parol evidence rule, the court first must decide whether the parties’ written contract was intended to be the final expression of their agreement, and second whether the alleged oral representations would contradict the written terms of the agreement.”
Court opinion: “ Parol evidence rule bars the admission of oral promises and representations that are inconsistent with its written terms, unless an exception to the rule applies in this case…. alleged oral representations Arnold made to Carrow during their negotiations, if admitted for purposes of construing their contract, would be inconsistent with the written terms of their final Agreement.” “ I find the challenged language unambiguous.” “ Carrow argues that parol evidence should be admitted because Arnold fraudulently induced Carrow to enter the Agreement. Courts have long recognized that where fraud or misrepresentation is alleged, evidence of oral promises or representations which are made prior to the written agreement will be admitted.” “ Carrow knew that there were provisions in the proposed Agreement that he did not like because they seemed inconsistent with the alleged oral promises. …All of the statements Carrow characterizes as fraudulent are either promises or statements of future intent. The problem with allowing a party to use promises and statements of intention to invoke the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule is that the very point of the rule is to exclude such things.” “ The parties have entered a binding contract, represented by a written instrument, for the sale of Carrow’s farm to Arnold.”
False. Oral contracts are enforceable unless they are the types of contracts that fall within the scope of the statute of frauds. False. Contracts must be in writing to be enforceable if the contract concerns a sale of goods over $500. False. This is a collateral contract and, according to the statute of frauds, it must be in writing to be enforceable. Jill need not pay Jack’s debt.
True. This is an example of a situation in which the main purpose or leading object rule applies: no writing is required where the guarantor makes a collateral promise for the main purpose of obtaining personal economic advantage. Since Joey took out the loan to repay Chandler, Chandler made the collateral promise for personal economic advantage. Even though the contract was oral, Chandler must repay the loan for Joey. True. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution applies, thus federal law prevails.
The correct answer is (b). The correct answer is (a).
The correct answer is (b). This is a similar situation to the famed Rosenfeld v. Basquiat case (Rosenfeld v. Basquiat, 78 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1996)).
Opportunity for discussion about logic and fairness of the Statute of Frauds and/or the parol evidence rule.