Gilbert S.Shaw was chairman of the Board of Directors of the National School of Heavy Equipment, Inc.He drew a substantial weekly salary, held 100 percent of the voting stock and 51 percent of the Class B stock of the school and employed most of his family in the operation of the school.Shaw contracted on behalf of the school with Stuart Studio to produce 25,000 catalogs for the school.The catalogs were being printed in an effort to attract new students through an advertising campaign, as the school was bordering on financial ruin.Gilbert orally assured Stuart Studio that if the National School could not pay the full total that he "would stand good" for the entire bill.The school is now unable to pay for the printing, and Gilbert argues that he is not liable because the statute of frauds requires his promise to be in writing.Which rule might consider this promise to be original and permit the oral agreement to be enforced?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The leading object rule would consider Shaw's promise to be original and enforceable because the purpose of the agreement was to save the school from financial ruin and attract new students through advertising, which was the leading object or main purpose of the transaction. Under this rule, a promise that is made to fulfill the leading object of the contract does not need to be in writing, even if the contract as a whole requires a writing under the statute of frauds.

Gilbert SShaw Was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the the National