Basics In general a writing is not required

Basics • In general, a writing is not required to create a legally enforceable contract • However, a writing is preferable to an oral contract for a number of reasons: more definite, signature provides authentication, and use as evidence • Sometimes, a writing is required… 16 - 1

The Statute of Frauds • In 17 th Century England, the Statute of Frauds was enacted to prevent fraud by requiring written evidence before enforcing certain types of contracts • - American states 16 2

Covered Contracts • • Collateral contracts Contracts for real estate Contracts for more than one year Contracts for sale of goods over $500 • Executor’s promise • Marriage as consideration 16 - 3

Covered Contracts • Collateral contracts in which a person (guarantor) promises to perform an obligation of another person (principal debtor) to a third person (obligee) – Example: Bob is a personal guarantor on a loan from City Bank to Bob’s brother, John 16 - 4

The Collateral Contract 16 - 5

Exception to Collateral Contract Rule • Under the main purpose or leading object rule, no writing is required where the guarantor makes a collateral promise for the main purpose of obtaining personal economic advantage • See Wintersport Ltd. v. Millionaire. com, Inc. 16 - 6

Wintersport Ltd. v. Millionaire. com Inc. • Facts & Procedural History: – Wintersport Ltd. printed one issue of Millionaire. com’s magazine – They negotiated to print another issue, but order and price cut due to magazine’s financial trouble – Concerned over creditworthiness, Leiter (Wintersport) told Strong (Millionaire. com) that Wintersport would only extend credit to Millionaire. com if the firm paid a $10, 000 16 - 7 down payment and a stockholder (White)

Wintersport Ltd. v. Millionaire. com Inc. • Facts & Procedural History: – White (Millionaire. com) gave Leiter personal guaranty via the phone and sent a $10, 000 check – Millionaire. com failed to pay balance and Wintersport sued Millionaire. com – Trial court entered judgment for Wintersport against Millionaire. com and White, but White appealed, arguing that the action should have been dismissed because the statute of 16 - 8 frauds prevented the enforcement of his oral

Wintersport Ltd. v. Millionaire. com Inc. • Issue and Legal Reasoning: – Does the statute of frauds prevent enforcement of White’s oral guaranty? – An original promise – outside statute of frauds – occurs when the promisor receives a direct benefit from the promise – Wintersport did not show that White’s benefit was anything more than an indirect incident of share ownership – Reversed and dismissed in favor of White 16 - 9

Covered Contracts • Contracts for the transfer or sale of an interest in real estate – Some states require a writing for leases and certain easements on real property – Exception: if vendor fully performed on the contract or vendee reasonably relied on the contract to his/her detriment 16 - 10

Covered Contracts • Bilateral contracts that cannot be performed within a year from the date of their formation (one year rule) – Is performance possible within year? • Probability of performance irrelevant – Example: Jack signs contract to 16 - 11

Covered Contracts • UCC 2 -201: contracts for the sale of goods for a price of $500 or more • Includes agreements to modify existing sales contracts if contract as modified is for a price of $500 or more [UCC section 2– 209(3)] • Example: Pam buys a refrigerator for $501, thus a writing is required to be 16 - 12 enforceable

Covered Contracts • Though uncommon, the statute of frauds requires a writing to evidence (a) contracts in which an executor or administrator promises to be personally liable for debt of an estate, or (b) contracts in which marriage is the consideration 16 - 13

Satisfying the Statute of Frauds • Most states require only a signed memorandum of the parties’ agreement stating the essential terms: – (a) identity of parties, (b) subject matter identified with reasonable certainty, and (c) signed by the party to be charged 16 - 14– Memorandum need not be made at the

Satisfying the Statute of Frauds • UCC 2– 201: writing must be sufficient to indicate a contract for sale has been made between the parties, but must indicate the quantity of goods to be sold – A sales receipt may satisfy the requirement • Sufficient writing includes (a) confirmatory memorandum between merchants, (b) part payment or part 16 - 15

Consequences • If a covered contract does not satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds, the contract is unenforceable • A person injured by the unenforceable contract may pursue an action based on quasicontract or promissory estoppel 16 - 16

The CISG & a Writing • The Convention on the International Sale of Goods does not require that a contract be in writing to be enforceable – A contract need not take any particular form, and 16 - 17 can be proven by any

Cyberlaw v. Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign) of 2000 v. The federal E-Sign provides that in interstate commerce transactions, an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature, and an electronic contract has the same legal effect as a traditionally-printed contract 16 - 18

The Parol Evidence Rule • The parol evidence rule provides that, when parties enter a written contract that they intend as a complete integration (final statement of agreement), a court will not permit the use of evidence of prior or contemporaneous statements to add to, alter, or contradict the terms of the written 16 - 19

Watkins & Sons Pet Supplies v. the lams Company • Facts & Procedural History: – Iams, a pet food manufacturer, required distributors, including Watkins, to sign yearly written distributorship agreements – Iams offered a 2% discount to distributors who sold Iams products exclusively – Watkins alleged it became an exclusive Iams distributor because it relied on a 16 - 20

Watkins & Sons Pet Supplies v. the lams Company • Facts & Procedural History: – Contract of 1/31/93 stated that Iams “may appoint any other distributor to sell Products within the Territory” and contained an “entireties” clause – The contract expired by its terms and Iams gave an exclusive distribution contract to a competitor of Watkins – Watkins sued and district court granted summary judgment to Iams; Watkins appealed 16 - 21

Watkins & Sons Pet Supplies v. the lams Company • Issue: – Was Watkins’ reliance on alleged representations of Iams reasonable? • Law Applied to Facts : – The four corners of the document determine the terms of the agreement – When a written contract is the final statement of the parties’ agreement (a complete integration), the parol evidence rule prohibits the parties from introducing 16 - 22 extrinsic evidence of the agreement

Watkins & Sons Pet Supplies v. the lams Company • Holding: – The integration clause in the contract makes Watkins’s reliance on Iams’s representations unreasonable as a matter of law – Affirmed in favor of 16 - 23 Iams

More on Parol Evidence • UCC 2 -202 includes parol evidence rule • Admissible parol evidence: – Additional terms in partially integrated contracts – Explaining ambiguities – Circumstances invalidating contract – Existence of condition 16 - 24

Parol Evidence Chart 16 - 25