What did the appellate court rule in the case in the text, Power Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., involving the enforceability of an alleged oral agreement by which the plaintiff assumed a third party's debt owed to the defendant in return for the defendant transferring a licensing agreement to the plaintiff?
A) That the plaintiff was barred from recovery by the suretyship provision of the statute of frauds.
B) That the plaintiff could recover because the original agreement between the third party and the defendant was in writing.
C) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the main purpose doctrine.
D) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the parol evidence rule.
E) That the plaintiff could recover as a matter of law because the statute of frauds does not apply to suretyship agreements.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of What did the appellate court rule in the case in the text, Power Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., involving the enforceability of an alleged oral agreement by which the plaintiff assumed a third party's debt owed to the defendant in return for the defendant transferring a licensing agreement to the plaintiff?
A) That the plaintiff was barred from recovery by the suretyship provision of the statute of frauds.
B) That the plaintiff could recover because the original agreement between the third party and the defendant was in writing.
C) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the main purpose doctrine.
D) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the parol evidence rule.
E) That the plaintiff could recover as a matter of law because the statute of frauds does not apply to suretyship agreements.

What Did the Appellate Court Rule in the Case in the Text