A & B entered into an oral contract of sale of A's car worth ₱4.5M where the object was supposed to be delivered upon payment of the price. When A went to B's house to pay the price, the latter refused to sell hence, a complaint for specific performance was filed by A. will the complaint prosper?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

CContracts involving the sale of real property or of an interest therein are required to be in writing under the Statute of Frauds to be enforceable. However, for personal property, such as a car, an oral contract can be valid and enforceable. The issue here is not about the form of the contract but rather its value. In many jurisdictions, contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value (which can vary) must be in writing to be enforceable. Given the high value of the car (₱4.5M), if the jurisdiction has a threshold below this amount requiring a written contract for the sale of personal property, the oral contract would not be enforceable. The correct choices hinge on the understanding that the enforceability of the contract may be affected by its not being in writing due to its value, not the nature of the contract itself. However, without specific jurisdictional law stating that contracts of such value for personal property must be in writing, choice A and C's emphasis on the necessity of a written contract for enforceability suggests a misunderstanding of the general principles governing contracts. Therefore, my initial explanation may not fully align with the intended correct answers, as it seems I've misinterpreted the application of the Statute of Frauds and the specifics of enforceability related to the value of the contract in question. The correct explanation should focus on the principles that specifically apply to the scenario provided, considering jurisdictional variations in the law.

A & B Entered into an Oral Contract of Sale