Which of the following was the result in the Case Nugget in the text involving the dispute between Dr.Ralph M.Aurigemma and New Castle Care,LLC,involving whether an oral agreement entered into on September 4 involving Dr.Aurigemma serving as medical director from October 1 of that year until October 1 of the next year was enforceable?
A)That the contract was not in writing and,therefore,could not be enforced.
B)That the contract could be enforced because of the parol evidence rule.
C)That the contract was enforceable because of the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds.
D)That the contract could not be enforced because of the parol evidence rule.
E)That the contract was enforceable because agreements for professional services do not come within the protection of the statute of frauds.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The court ruled that because the terms of the oral contract were for a time period of more than a year,the oral contract needed to have been in writing in order to have been valid.The court also pointed out that in Delaware,the state at issue,the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds does not apply to oral contracts incapable of being performed within a year.
B)The court ruled that because the terms of the oral contract were for a time period of more than a year,the oral contract needed to have been in writing in order to have been valid.The court also pointed out that in Delaware,the state at issue,the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds does not apply to oral contracts incapable of being performed within a year.
C)The court ruled that because the terms of the oral contract were for a time period of more than a year,the oral contract needed to have been in writing in order to have been valid.The court also pointed out that in Delaware,the state at issue,the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds does not apply to oral contracts incapable of being performed within a year.
D)The court ruled that because the terms of the oral contract were for a time period of more than a year,the oral contract needed to have been in writing in order to have been valid.The court also pointed out that in Delaware,the state at issue,the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds does not apply to oral contracts incapable of being performed within a year.
E)The court ruled that because the terms of the oral contract were for a time period of more than a year,the oral contract needed to have been in writing in order to have been valid.The court also pointed out that in Delaware,the state at issue,the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds does not apply to oral contracts incapable of being performed within a year.

Which of the Following Was the Result in the Case