[Lake House] Damian has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Frida wants to buy the house on the lake. Damian and Frida orally agree that Frida will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Damian hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Frida for $300,000. Damian signs the top of the document. Frida does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Damian backs out of the contract, and Frida sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Frida did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.
-Regarding Damian's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because Frida did not sign the document, which of the following is true?
A) Damian is correct.
B) Damian is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document.
C) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
D) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
E) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the parties were clearly identified.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Damian is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document. In the context of the statute of frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged, the key issue is that the party being sued (in this case, Damian) has signed the document. The statute does not require the signature of the party who is suing (Frida) for the contract to be enforceable against the party who signed it (Damian).

[Lake House] Damian Has Two Houses, a House on the Lake