Smith and Roberson's Business Law 16th Edition by Richard Mann,Barry Roberts

Exercise 17

Presti claims that he reached an oral agreement with Wilson by telephone in October 2013 to buy a horse for $60,000. Presti asserts that he sent Wilson a bill of sa leand a postdated check, which Wilson retained. Presti also claims that Wilson told him that he wished not to consummate the transaction until January 1, 2014, for tax reasons. The check was neither deposited nor negotiated. Wilson denies that he ever agreed to sell the horse or that he received the check and bill of sale from Presti. Presti's claim is supported by a copy of his check stub and by the affidavit of his executive assistant, who says that he monitored the telephone call and prepared and mailed both the bill of sale and the check. Wilson argu esthat the statute of frauds governs this transaction, a ndbecause there was no writing, the contract claim is barred. Is Wilson correct? Explain.