Exam 17: Writing, Electronic Forms, and Interpretation of Contracts

An oral contract can be enforced when it relates to:

When a contract may be terminated at will by either party, the statute of frauds is not applicable because the contract may be terminated within one year.

An insurance company cannot refuse to pay the fire loss of the buyer of a house on the grounds that the sales contract for the house was not binding because it was not properly signed.

The parol evidence rule may not apply if:

When a person has performed services under an oral contract that cannot be enforced because of the statute of frauds, such person:

A promise to pay an attorney a fee owed by a third person can be enforced without a writing.

The parol evidence rule:

When the main purpose of the promisor's promise to pay the debt of another is to benefit the promisor, the statute of frauds is not applicable, and the oral promise to pay the debt is binding.

A father's oral promise to his daughter and her fiancée made in consideration of their contemplated marriage is binding when made in the course of a serious discussion.

The parol evidence rule generally excludes words spoken before or at the time a written contract was executed from contradicting the terms of the contract.

Under the majority view, a contract that does not satisfy the statute of frauds is voidable.

The parol evidence rule is based on the theory that either there never was an oral agreement or, if there was, the parties purposely abandoned it when they executed their written contract.

Parol evidence may be admitted to show that a provision was omitted as the result of:

If a contract is unclear, it will be interpreted against the party who drafted it.

A writing that satisfies the requirement of a writing under the statute of frauds could be evidenced by:

A promise to pay a debt must be in writing if:

Provisions of a contract will be considered separately and not as a whole.

A signed letter from an employer setting forth details of an oral contract of employment satisfies the statute of frauds.

Franklin, a hobby-shop supplier, and Gordon, a hobby-shop owner, entered into a contract that provided that Franklin would sell Gordon fifty World War II battleship models at Franklin's cost of $2.95 each, plus a reasonable profit. Gordon brought suit to enforce the contract against Franklin, who refused to deliver the models. Franklin claimed that there was no contract because of indefiniteness. Is Franklin correct?

A court may not imply a term: