Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 13th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 11

A Question of Ethics: The Parol Evidence Rule.

Robert Shelborne asked attorney William Williams to represent him in a deal with Robert Tundy. Shelborne expected to receive $31 million and agreed to pay Williams a fee of $1 million. Tundy said that a tax of $100,000 would have to be paid for Shelborne to receive the $31 million. Shelborne asked James Parker to loan him $50,000. Parker, Shelborne, and Williams wired the funds to Tundy. They never heard from him again. No $31 million was transferred. Shelborne then disappeared. Parker filed a suit against Williams, alleging breach of contract. Parker offered as evidence a recording of a phone conversation in which Williams guaranteed Shelborne's loan. [ Parker v. Williams, 977 So.2d 476 (Ala. 2007)?
(a) Is the court likely to rule in Parker's favor on the contract claim? Why or why not? Does Williams have a defense under the Statute of Frauds?
(b) The sham deal at the center of this case is known to law enforcement authorities as advance fee fraud, or a "419 scam." The victim is promised a transfer of funds from an overpaid contract, or some other suspect source, but is asked to pay a tax or other fee first. Among the parties in this case, who, if anyone, behaved ethically? Discuss.