Question 1

A written agreement was signed by two parties and it was intended to be their entire agreement. The parol evidence rule will prevent the admission of evidence that is offered to:

Accepted Answer

In partially integrated agreements,only that evidence is allowed which proves additional terms of the agreement.

Question 2

Jones goes to a clothing store and orders $1000 worth of clothing on credit. The salesperson writes up a receipt describing the terms of the deal, but Jones does not sign anything. Three days later, the store delivers $750 worth of clothing, which Jones accepts. One day later, however, Jones decides that he doesn't want the clothing. When the store insists that he has to pay the full $1000, Jones pleads the statute of frauds. Does the statute of frauds give Jones a defense against payment here?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jones goes to a clothing store and...

Question 3

Ward is attempting to introduce oral evidence in an action relating to a written contract between Ward and Weaver. Weaver has pleaded the parol evidence rule. Ward will be prohibited from introducing parol evidence if it relates to:

Accepted Answer

The parol evidence rule prohibits parties from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements that contradict, vary, or alter the terms of a fully integrated written contract. However, evidence of a subsequent modification to the contract may be admissible. Fraud, mistakes, and obvious errors in the contract may also be exceptions to the parol evidence rule. In this case, if Ward is attempting to introduce evidence that changes the meaning of an unambiguous provision in the written contract, it will be barred by the parol evidence rule.

Question 4

Sammy entered into an oral contract with Macaulay for sale of goods amounting to $900. Sammy paid the amount. But Macaulay refused to deliver the goods. Sammy thus suffered serious losses because of Macaulay's breach of contract. Sammy sued Macaulay. At the same time Macaulay took the defense under statute of frauds. Under which principle is Sammy protected?

Accepted Answer

Sammy can argue that he relied on Macaulay's promise to sell the goods and that he suffered losses as a result of Macaulay's breach of contract. This argument falls under the principle of promissory estoppel, which may be used as a defense against the statute of frauds. Promissory estoppel allows a plaintiff to enforce an oral contract even if it does not comply with the requirements of the statute of frauds if the plaintiff can prove that he or she reasonably relied on the defendant's promise and suffered a detriment as a result.

Question 5

A merger clause is also known as an:

Accepted Answer

A merger clause is also known as an integration clause. It is a contractual provision that declares that the written agreement represents the complete and final agreement of the parties, superseding all prior negotiations, discussions, and writings.

Question 6

Arnold promised to sell his car to Adams in lieu of full payment of his debt. However in the written contract, Arnold had forgotten to specify which car he wants to sell. Is there any remedy?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Arnold promised to sell his car to...

Question 7

The underlying purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to:

Accepted Answer

The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable. Its purpose is not to prevent fraud in general or make fraud illegal, but rather to ensure that the existence of an oral contract can be substantiated with written evidence in cases where a dispute arises. The statute does not provide for punishment of those who commit frauds.

Question 8

Which of the following is admissible with respect to a partially integrated contract?

Accepted Answer

Evidence that resolves ambiguities in the contract is admissible with respect to a partially integrated contract. This means that evidence that clarifies uncertain or unclear provisions of the contract is allowed. However, evidence that seeks to completely divide the contract, shows the contract is unconditional on the occurrence of an event or contradicts the contract's provisions is not admissible.

Question 9

The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign):

Accepted Answer

The E-Sign Act explicitly overrides any state laws that are inconsistent with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which provides a framework for the use of electronic records and signatures in transactions. A, B, and D are incorrect because the E-Sign Act actually supports the validity of electronic agreements, allows for electronic records to fulfill the statute of frauds, and creates a legal framework for e-commerce that encourages electronic records and digital signatures.

Question 10

In entering into contracts for services, customers might be influenced by statements made by sales representatives. Businesses offering services often use standardized form contracts. Under the parol evidence rule, pre-contract statements made in these circumstances are effectively unenforceable. How can a business effectively and ethically use standardized form contracts and the parol evidence rule?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In entering into contracts for services, customers...

Question 11

A fully "integrated" contract under the parol evidence rule is one that:

Accepted Answer

A fully integrated contract under the parol evidence rule is one that is intended by the parties to be the complete, exclusive statement of their agreement. This means that any prior or contemporaneous negotiations, discussions, or agreements outside of the written contract cannot be used to contradict, add to, or modify the terms of the written contract.

Question 12

Davis owes a $5 million debt to the C Bank. He also owes $2 million to Samuel. However right now, Davis is having trouble paying either loan. C Bank is willing to finance Davis' debt, but only if Samuel co-signs. Samuel, who fears that he'll get nothing on his $2 million loan if Davis doesn't get some help from the bank, is willing to do so. Thus, C Bank, Samuel and Davis complete a three-party agreement in which the bank agrees to finance the $5 million debt, Davis agrees to pay it back at a certain rate over a certain term, and Samuel agrees to pay the debt "in the event that Davis first defaults." Is this agreement covered by the statute of frauds? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Davis owes a $5 million debt to...

Question 13

April and Brian entered into a completely integrated written contract. Before the written contract was completed, April made an oral statement to Brian regarding the terms of the contract. This statement was not contained in the written contract. Under the parol evidence rule, evidence of April's oral statement would be admissible if it were used to:

Accepted Answer

Under the parol evidence rule, evidence of a prior or contemporaneous oral or written statement is generally not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a completely integrated written contract. However, evidence of an additional consistent term that was not included in the written contract may be admissible. Therefore, choice C is the best option as it allows for an additional term, consistent with the written agreement, to be introduced through the oral statement. The other options (A, B, and D) would involve contradicting or changing the terms of the written contract, which would not be allowed under the parol evidence rule.

Question 14

The parol evidence rule is relevant only in cases:

Accepted Answer

The parol evidence rule applies when parties have a written agreement, and it seeks to prevent the introduction of outside evidence that would alter or contradict the terms of that written agreement.

Question 15

Bruce told Adam that he was selling his house in Syracuse, New York. Adam sent Bruce an e-mail containing an offer of $300,000 for the house. Bruce responded via e-mail that he wanted $315,000 for the house. After further e-mails, the parties finally agreed on a sale with a price of $310,000. A series of e-mails contained the terms of the sale, and all included a salutation containing their typewritten names. However, Bruce later decided to sell the house to Marty for $325,000. Adam sued Bruce, claiming that Bruce breached their contract for the sale of the house. Most likely, Adam will:

Accepted Answer

The essential terms of the contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, and price) were set forth in the signed e-mails, and both parties included their typewritten names in the salutations, indicating their intent to be bound by the terms of the e-mails. Therefore, there is a valid contract between Bruce and Adam, and Bruce breached that contract by selling the house to Marty for a higher price. The fact that the contract was formed through e-mails does not prevent it from being enforceable.

Question 16

King sent Foster, a real estate developer, a signed offer to sell a specified parcel of land to Foster for $200,000. King, an engineer, had inherited the land. Foster telephoned King the same day that he received his letter and accepted the offer. Which of the following statements concerning the contract is correct under the Statute of Frauds?

Accepted Answer

Under the Statute of Frauds, contracts for the sale of land are required to be in writing and signed by the party sought to be charged, but there is an exception known as the part performance doctrine. If one party has partially performed under the contract, such as making a payment or accepting the offer, then the contract is enforceable against that party, even if the other party has not signed the contract. Therefore, in this case, a contract was formed when Foster accepted King's offer over the phone, and it would be enforceable against King.

Question 17

The "confirmatory memorandum" exception to the UCC's Statute of Frauds provision:

Accepted Answer

The confirmatory memorandum exception under the UCC's Statute of Frauds applies when both parties are merchants. It allows a written confirmation of a contract to satisfy the writing requirement if one party sends it to the other within a reasonable time and the receiving party does not object within ten days.

Question 18

Abel hired Carr to restore Abel's vintage car for $800. The terms of their oral agreement provided that Carr was to complete the work within 18 months. Actually, the work could be completed within one year. Can Abel insist that the work be completed within a year instead of the 18 months?

Accepted Answer

The Statute of Frauds requires contracts that cannot be performed within one year to be in writing, but since the work can be completed within one year, the oral agreement is enforceable.

Question 19

Ned and Bill complete an oral contract for the sale of land from Ned to Bill for $100,000. Bill pays Ned the $100,000, and then begins to build his house on the land. At this point, Ned says that the deal is off and refuses to convey the deed to Bill. In doing so, Ned relies on the statute of frauds. Is this agreement enforceable by Bill?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Ned and Bill complete an oral contract...

Question 20

Which of the following is a uniform state law designed to "remove barriers to electronic commerce by validating and effectuating electronic records and signatures"?

Accepted Answer

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) is a uniform state law that aims to remove barriers to electronic commerce by validating and effectuating electronic records and signatures.

Quiz 16: Writing