06.09.2021 Views

Sales and Leases - A Problem-based Approach, 2016a

Sales and Leases - A Problem-based Approach, 2016a

Sales and Leases - A Problem-based Approach, 2016a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

5.3.2. The admission exception: If a party to an agreement that does not satisfy the statute<br />

of fraud admits the existence of a contract in its pleadings, testimony, or other court<br />

proceedings, the contract is enforceable under UCC § 2-201(3)(b) up to the quantity of<br />

goods admitted.<br />

<strong>Problem</strong> 5-5. On October 1, Bonnie, a student, orally agreed to purchase her roommate<br />

Stephanie’s car for $6,000. When Stephanie tendered the car, Bonnie refused to pay, saying that<br />

her boyfriend, a law student, told her that the contract was not enforceable because it was not in<br />

writing.<br />

(1) Stephanie sued Bonnie, alleging:<br />

A. On October 1, plaintiff offered to sell her car to defendant.<br />

B. On October 1, defendant accepted the offer <strong>and</strong> promised to pay plaintiff<br />

$6,000 for the car.<br />

C. On October 3, plaintiff tendered the car <strong>and</strong> defendant refused to pay for it.<br />

D. The market value of the car is $5,600.<br />

E. Wherefore plaintiff is damaged in the amount of $400.<br />

How should Bonnie answer the complaint?<br />

(2) Alternatively, suppose Bonnie was questioned in a deposition as follows:<br />

Q: Did you <strong>and</strong> Stephanie talk about purchasing her car on October 1?<br />

A: Yes.<br />

Q: And she offered to sell it to you for $6,000?<br />

A: Yes.<br />

Q: And you accepted that offer?<br />

A: Yes.<br />

Will Bonnie prevail in her statute of frauds defense?<br />

5.3.3. The performance exception: Under UCC § 2-201(3)(c), an agreement for the sale of<br />

goods for $500 or more not otherwise satisfying the statute of frauds will nonetheless be<br />

enforced if there has been performance, either in the form of payment for goods or<br />

acceptance of goods. Many other defenses to contract formation make the contract<br />

voidable, so that a party can assert the defense even if they have performed. But if you<br />

accept the goods or pay for them, you lose your right to later assert the statute as a<br />

defense. This makes sense, for if the purpose of the statute is to prevent fraud, a person<br />

should not be able to in effect admit they made a contract by performing it, <strong>and</strong> then deny<br />

it.<br />

72

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!