Deck 18: Contracts in Writing

Question 1

Which of the following is false regarding the statute of frauds?

A) It relates to fraudulent contracts.
B) It does not address illegal contracts.
C) It does not exist at the federal level.
D) It requires that only certain contracts be in writing.
E) It is not a unitary government act.

Answer 1

It relates to fraudulent contracts.

Question 2

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act reflects the decision that electronic transactions do not constitute a written copy because the electronic transaction is not technically a written document.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

As discussed in the text, a main purpose of the statute of frauds is to prevent unreliable _____ evidence from interfering with a contractual relationship.

A) Hearsay
B) Oral
C) Irrelevant
D) Immaterial
E) Inconclusive

Answer 3

Oral

Question 4

The concept of performance has no effect on the statute of frauds.

Question 5

Which of the following is a type of contract that falls within the scope of the statute of frauds?

A) Contracts whose terms prevent possible performance within one year
B) Contracts involving the provision of services
C) Contracts involving the provision of any goods
D) Contracts involving any debt
E) Contracts involving services in relation to computer equipment

Question 6

The purpose of the parol evidence rule is to prevent attempts to use only oral evidence to prove agreements.

Question 7

Whenever a written agreement under the statute of frauds contains a serious, and obvious, typographical error, parol evidence is admissible to demonstrate that the error was indeed an error, as well as to set forth the proper term.

Question 8

In some states a promise to pay a debt that has already been discharged in bankruptcy must be in writing in order to be enforceable.

Question 9

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 enforceable because agreements for professional services do not come within the protection of the statute of frauds.
B) That the contract was enforceable because of the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds.
C) That the contract was not in writing and, therefore, could not be enforced.
D) That the contract could not be enforced because of the parol evidence rule.
E) That the contract could be enforced because of the parol evidence rule.

Question 10

There is federal U.S. legislation titled "Statute of Frauds".

Question 11

What did the appellate court rule in the case in the text, Power Entertainment Inc., v. Football League Properties Inc., involving the enforceability of an alleged oral agreement by which the plaintiff assumed a third party's debt owed to the defendant in return for the defendant transferring a licensing agreement to the plaintiff?

A) That the plaintiff was barred from recovery by the suretyship provision of the statute of frauds.
B) That the plaintiff could recover because the original agreement between the third party and the defendant was in writing.
C) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the main purpose doctrine.
D) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the parol evidence rule.
E) That the plaintiff could recover as a matter of law because the statute of frauds does not apply to suretyship agreements.

Question 12

Blaine and Amanda orally agreed with Medical Center X for an in vitro fertilization procedure that would not result in the birth of an autistic child. They later signed a written contract stating that the medical center could not promise an absence of physical or mental defects and assumed no responsibility for such defects. The child conceived had autism. Which of the following is the most likely result of the parents' suit for breach of the oral agreement if the court follows the decision Scalisi et al. v. New York University Medical Center discussed in the text?

A) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving contracts conditioned on orally agreed upon terms.
B) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving contracts that are not final as they are part written and part oral.
C) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving contracts that are incomplete.
D) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving evidence of prior dealings or usage of trade.
E) The medical center will prevail based upon the written contract.

Question 13

In order for the statute of frauds to be satisfied, all parties to a contract must sign the writing.

Question 14

When a court deems a contract integrated, parol evidence is admissible.

Question 15

Contracts related to an interest in land fall within the statute of frauds.

Question 16

Which of the following is false regarding written contracts?

A) Disputes are easier to settle when contractual terms are solidified in writing.
B) The moment of writing allows both parties to reconsider terms and ensure what they desire.
C) In general, written contracts aid in the conduct of smooth business contracts.
D) The idea of requiring a writing comes from an English law.
E) All contracts must be in writing in order to be enforced.

Question 17

If a contract's terms require that modification be in writing, oral modifications are inadmissible and unenforceable.

Question 18

Which of the following is a type of contract that does not fall within the scope of the statute of frauds?

A) Contracts related to an interest in land
B) Promises made in consideration of marriage
C) Contracts related to any lease of land or equipment
D) Contracts whose terms prevent possible performance within one year
E) Contracts for one party to pay the debt of another if the initial party fails to pay

Question 19

Sally has a large farm and significant other assets. She agreed to loan her nephew Todd $100,000 with payments of principle and interest to be made yearly. A few years later she and Todd got into a dispute because Sally did not like his new girlfriend, Polly. Soon thereafter Todd got notice that Sally was suing him for not paying interest on the note. Todd defended on the basis that two years after the initial loan agreement was entered into, he and Sally entered into an oral agreement that he would perform services on her farm in lieu of paying interest on the note. If the court follows the reasoning of the court in the Case Opener involving Monroe Bradstad and Jeanne Garland, which of the following is the most likely result of the dispute between Sally and Todd involving whether he owes past interest amounts?

A) Todd will be required to pay the interest amounts because the agreement involving performing services in lieu of paying interest was not in writing.
B) Todd will be required to pay the interest amounts because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of any oral agreement outside the written agreement.
C) Assuming the court credits Todd's account of events, Todd will not be required to pay the interest amounts because the oral agreement will be considered a separate enforceable agreement.
D) Assuming the court credits Todd's account of events, Todd will not be required to pay the interest amounts because the oral agreement will be considered an extension and part of the original written agreement.
E) Assuming the court credits Todd's account of events, based on the parol evidence rule, Todd will be required to pay only 1/2 of the interest amounts.

Question 20

In ______ the English Parliament passed the Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.

A) 1555
B) 1677
C) 1770
D) 1776
E) 1865

Question 21

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, contracts for the sale of goods totaling more than ______ must be in writing.

A) $200
B) $300
C) $500
D) $600
E) $1,000

Question 22

Even if they would normally have to be in writing, if applicable criteria are met, oral contracts for _____ goods are enforceable.

A) Retailed
B) Wholesale
C) Collateral
D) Consumer
E) Customized

Question 23

Under ____, if the buyer in an alleged contract for the sale of land has paid any portion of the sale price, has begun to permanently improve the land, or has taken possession of the land, the courts will consider the contract partially performed, and this partial performance will amount to proof of the contract.

A) Substantial performance
B) Partial performance
C) Sales substantiation
D) The purchase proof rule
E) The sales proof rule

Question 24

Which of the following is false regarding the statute of frauds provision relating to an interest in land?

A) The statute is intended to prevent oral claims to the existence of a contract for the sale of land.
B) The statute requires a writing as evidence of a contract to sell land.
C) A claim to an oral contract for the sale of land is not enough to prove a contract of sale existed.
D) Mortgages on land are within the statute of frauds.
E) No leases are within the statute of frauds.

Question 25

Which of the following are debts incurred in an initial contract?

A) Secondary obligations
B) Primary obligations
C) Secondary promises
D) Collateral promises
E) Suretyship promises

Question 26

A[n] ______ is a statement made in court, under oath, or at some stage during a legal proceeding in which a party against whom charges have been brought admits that an oral contract existed, even though the contract was required to be in writing.

A) Admission
B) Submission
C) Deposition
D) Interrogatory
E) Confirmation

Question 27

Which of the following was the result in the case in the text Shelby's Inc., v. Sierra Bravo Inc., involving the issue of whether an agreement to deposit debris and soil on land and an alleged agreement to build a building pad and waterway came within the statute of frauds?

A) The court ruled that the agreement did not involve an interest in land and did not come within the statute of frauds.
B) The court ruled that the agreement did involve an interest in land and, therefore came within the statute of frauds.
C) The court ruled that the agreement did not involve an interest in land but placed it within the statute of frauds in order to prevent injustice.
D) The court ruled that the agreement fell within the statute of frauds but that an oral agreement was sufficient.
E) The court ruled that the agreement to deposit debris and soil on land did not fall within the statute of frauds and that no writing was needed, but that the agreement to build a building pad and waterway did fall within the statute of frauds requiring a writing.

Question 28

Which of the following involves the legal enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable contract due to a party's detrimental reliance on the contract?

A) Promissory estoppel
B) Substantial estoppel
C) Promissory rule
D) Reliance rule
E) Promissory reliance

Question 29

Which of the following is an exception as to when a secondary obligation needs to be in writing?

A) The primary-purpose rule
B) The resulting-fact rule
C) The main-purpose rule
D) The delineated rule
E) The personal-obligation standard

Question 30

All states except ______ adhere to the admission exception to the statute of frauds.

A) Hawaii and Alaska
B) Louisiana and New York
C) Louisiana and California
D) Kentucky and Florida
E) North Carolina and Montana

Question 31

Which of the following parties must sign a document coming within the statute of frauds?

A) The party against whom action is sought
B) The offeror only
C) The offeree only
D) Only a person who has agreed to pay the debt of another
E) Any party to the contract

Question 32

Which of the following is a term for contracts within the statute of frauds involving promises to pay a debt of another if the initial party fails to pay?

A) Secondary obligations
B) Primary promises
C) Primary debts
D) Third-party debts
E) Commercial promises

Question 33

Which of the following is false regarding the statute of frauds and promises made in consideration of marriage?

A) Agreements regarding marriage in which one party is gaining something other than a return on his or her promise to marry are within the statute of frauds and must be in writing.
B) Mutual promises to marry fall within the statute of frauds.
C) Prenuptial agreements fall within the statute of frauds.
D) A prenuptial agreement is not automatically enforceable just because it is in writing.
E) When one party promises something to the other as part of an offer of marriage, the contract must be in writing to be enforceable.

Question 34

Which of the following is true regarding a signature on a document falling within the statute of frauds?

A) There is no requirement of any signature of either party to satisfy the statute of frauds.
B) Any party required to sign must sign at the beginning of the document.
C) Any party required to sign must sign at the end of the document.
D) Any party required to sign must sign both at the end and at the beginning of the document.
E) So long as it is meant as a signature, a party required to sign may sign at any place on the document.

Question 35

Which of the following is true regarding what is considered an interest in land within the statute of frauds?

A) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include promises to sell crops annually and agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property, but not boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land.
B) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include promises to sell crops annually, but not agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property or boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land.
C) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land, but not promises to sell crops annually or agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property.
D) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land and promises to sell crops annually, but not agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property.
E) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include promises to sell crops annually, agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property, and boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land.

Question 36

In most states, which of the following are exceptions to when the statute of frauds would apply?

A) Admissions, partial performance, and promissory estoppel
B) Partial performance and admissions, but not promissory estoppel
C) Promissory estoppel but not admissions or partial performance
D) Promissory estoppel and partial performance, but not admissions
E) Admissions but not partial performance or promissory estoppel

Question 37

Which of the following is needed in order to satisfy the UCC's requirement for a written document?

A) The contract or memorandum needs only to state the price of the goods.
B) The contract or memorandum needs only to state the quality of the goods.
C) The contract or memorandum needs only to state the quantity to be sold.
D) The contract or memorandum needs to state the price of the goods and the quality of the goods, but not the quantity to be sold.
E) The contract or memorandum needs to state the price of the goods, the quality of the goods, and also the quantity to be sold.

Question 38

Within the statute of frauds, "land" encompasses not only the land and soil itself but anything ______ to the land.

A) Relating
B) Adjacent
C) Contracted
D) Attached
E) Pertinent

Question 39

A[n] ______ agreement is an agreement two parties enter into before marriage that clearly states the ownership rights each party enjoys in the other party's property.

A) Preliminary
B) Planned
C) Approved
D) Prenuptial
E) Arranged

Question 40

What was the result in Stewart Lamle v. Mattel Inc., the case in the text in which the plaintiff claimed that in discussions Mattel agreed to a three-year license agreement to distribute a board game the plaintiff created, and that the agreement was confirmed by Mattel through an email, but that Mattel later wrongfully refused to enter into a written contract and follow through with the deal?

A) That as a matter of law the oral agreement was not enforceable because there was no writing.
B) That it was up to a jury to decide if fairness mandated that Mattel be required to follow through with the admitted deal.
C) That it was up to a jury to decide matters including whether the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement and whether an email contained the material terms of the oral contract.
D) That as a matter of law the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement and that the email involved, sent by an agent of Mattel, contained the material terms of the oral contract thereby binding Mattel to the agreement.
E) That no writing was required because the agreement did not come within the statute of frauds.

Question 41

"Lake House." Harry has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake. Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000. Harry signs the top of the document. Rebecca does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Harry backs out of the contract, and Rebecca sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Rebecca did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.

-Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that under the parol evidence rule he had the right to identify the house referenced in the contract?

A) Harry is correct.
B) Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, Rebecca, as the buyer, would be allowed to identify the subject matter in the event of a discrepancy.
C) Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, the judge would likely allow oral evidence regarding the house at issue in order to clarify an ambiguity.
D) Harry is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in situations involving an ambiguity.
E) Harry is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in the absence of a merger clause.

Question 42

Which of the following is false regarding international treatment of evidentiary matters?

A) German law does not have a parol evidence rule.
B) France has a limited parol evidence rule.
C) The parol evidence rule in France does not apply to commercial contracts.
D) England requires that promises to pay for the debt of others be in writing.
E) England has significantly increased the number of contracts falling within the statute of frauds since the original act was passed.

Question 43

Which of the following are written contracts intended to be the complete and final representation of the parties' agreement?

A) Complete contracts
B) Integrated contracts
C) Adhesion contracts
D) Bilateral contracts
E) Acknowledged contracts

Question 44

One way parties can indicate their desire to create an integrated contract is through the use of a[n] ______ clause.

A) Complete
B) Merger
C) Adhesion
D) Bilateral
E) Acknowledged

Question 45

When may a court rule find parol evidence admissible to further the court's understanding of an agreement?

A) When a court determines that there is significant disagreement regarding the complete and final version of the agreement.
B) When a court determines that a written agreement does not represent a complete and final version of the agreement.
C) When a court determines that there is disagreement between the parties over performance of the agreement once performance has actually started.
D) When a court determines that the plaintiff failed to do sufficient research to determine if signing the agreement was advisable.
E) When a court determines that either party failed to do sufficient research to determine if signing the agreement was advisable.

Question 46

What is a purpose of the parol evidence rule?

A) To restrict oral evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
B) To restrict written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
C) To restrict oral and written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
D) To restrict hearsay from being admitted that supports or contradicts an agreement in its written form.
E) To restrict evidence from being admitted that substantially contradicts an agreement in its written form.

Question 47

A[n] ______ agreement is a clause parties include in a written agreement that states that the written agreement accurately reflects the final, complete version of the agreement.

A) Adhesion
B) Complete
C) Parol
D) Merger
E) Consolidation

Question 48

"Courtroom Surprises." Wilma agrees to sell Wally her house for $200,000. Wilma, Wally, and the house are all located in Tennessee. She also orally agrees to sell her used car to Wally for $1,000. Wilma and Wally discuss the fact that the house needs some repairs. Wilma gives Wally a key and tells him to do whatever he wants with the house. In reliance on her promise to sell the house, Wally sells his home, gets a loan, and has a new roof put on Wilma's house because of leaks that needed to be repaired to prevent further damage. When presented with the written agreements of sale for the home and the car, however, Wilma refuses to sign either. Wally sues, and the case proceeds to trial. Wilma tells the judge in court under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house but that she changed her mind before signing and that she believes she has protection under the statute of frauds. She tells the judge that no agreement was ever made regarding the car and that she also has protection under the statute of frauds regarding that matter.


-Which of the following is true regarding Wally getting a loan and putting a new roof on the house?

A) Wally should have known better, and his actions would be of no use to him in attempting to enforce the contract.
B) The judge would consider his actions under the UCC as exceptions to the parol evidence rule.
C) His actions would likely amount to promissory estoppel, which establishes an exception to the statute of frauds.
D) His actions would be considered as admissions.
E) His actions would be considered only because Wilma told the judge that she had orally agreed to the contract.

Question 49

"Not So Rich Uncle." Bruce is attempting to convince Sally to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Sally reluctantly agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Bruce agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. Bruce and Sally marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Bruce's supposedly rich uncle, Frank, dies. Frank has no living relatives other than Bruce and has a will leaving everything to Bruce who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Bruce agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Frank totaling $10,000. Sally is concerned about Bruce's doing so. Bruce tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Bruce admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry and did not want anything to slow down probate. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Sally. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Frank had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Bruce to inherit. Bruce disavowed his agreement to pay the $10,000 to various creditors of Frank.

-Which of the following is the appropriate term for the marriage agreement entered into between Bruce and Sally?

A) Marital solution agreement
B) Marital dissolution agreement
C) Prenuptial agreement
D) Marriage acknowledgement agreement
E) Marriage consideration agreement

Question 50

"Not So Rich Uncle." Bruce is attempting to convince Sally to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Sally reluctantly agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Bruce agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. Bruce and Sally marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Bruce's supposedly rich uncle, Frank, dies. Frank has no living relatives other than Bruce and has a will leaving everything to Bruce who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Bruce agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Frank totaling $10,000. Sally is concerned about Bruce's doing so. Bruce tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Bruce admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry and did not want anything to slow down probate. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Sally. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Frank had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Bruce to inherit. Bruce disavowed his agreement to pay the $10,000 to various creditors of Frank.

-Which of the following is the most likely result of Bruce's attempt to avoid his agreement to pay creditors of the estate out of his own pocket?

A) He will be able to avoid the agreement because it was not in writing.
B) He will be able to avoid the agreement because a promise to pay the debts of an estate would not come within the statute of frauds.
C) A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Bruce made will likely be enforceable under the substantial-purpose rule.
D) A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Bruce made will likely be enforceable under the main-purpose rule.
E) A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds; but regardless of whether the debtors can establish reliance, the oral agreement Bruce made will likely be enforceable because he admitted he had agreed to pay.

Question 51

Brandy, the president of ABC Communication., and Sam orally agreed that Sam would work as a computer programmer for ABC Co. for a three-year period. Their oral agreement also covered other matters such as his pay and the availability of one week of paid vacation. On the day he talked with Brandy, Sam signed an employee handbook including a provision that his employment was at will, meaning that at any time he could quit or the company could discharge him. A month later, Sam received a three-year contract for employment with ABC Co. in the mail incorporating the amount of his salary and other issues he had discussed with Brandy. Sam signed it and mailed it back, but he changed the vacation provision to three weeks instead of one week. Bobby, the human resources manager for ABC Co., called Sam up after Bobby received the agreement and told Sam that the contract was only a draft for discussion purposes and that he was actually firing Sam because he seemed too focused on vacation. Assuming the court follows the reasoning of the court in the dispute discussed in the text involving Michael Gallagher and Medical Research Consultants, which of the following would be the most likely result in the dispute between Sam and ABC Co. if Sam claims he had a three-year contract of employment?

A) ABC Co. will win because even if a three-year oral agreement for employment was made, it would not have been enforceable because the statute of frauds requires that agreements that cannot be completed within one year be in writing. Further, the draft Sam returned was not signed by ABC Co.
B) ABC Co. will win because although the three-year oral agreement for employment was initially enforceable, Sam reopened negotiations by altering the later contract to provide that he was to receive three weeks of vacation.
C) ABC Co. will win because as a matter of law, no other document can alter the provisions of an employee handbook.
D) A jury will decide if Brandy orally agreed to a three-year contract; and, if so, Sam gets his job back along with the extra weeks of vacation.
E) As a matter of law, since the contract was sent to Sam, he received a guarantee of employment for three years; but he does not get the extra weeks of vacation he inserted.

Question 52

Which of the following is true regarding writings created at the same time as a written agreement?

A) Although the parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement, these writings tend to be treated differently than prior or contemporaneous oral agreements in that the writings are more readily admitted as part of the written agreement than is oral evidence.
B) Although the parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement, these writings tend to be treated differently than prior or contemporaneous oral agreements in that the writings are less likely to be admitted as part of the written agreement than is oral evidence.
C) The parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement, and these writings are analyzed in the same way as prior or contemporaneous oral evidence.
D) The parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement only if a sale of goods is involved, and in that case the writings are analyzed in the same way as prior or contemporaneous oral evidence.
E) The parol evidence rule does not apply to writings created at the same time as the written agreement.

Question 53

"Courtroom Surprises." Wilma agrees to sell Wally her house for $200,000. Wilma, Wally, and the house are all located in Tennessee. She also orally agrees to sell her used car to Wally for $1,000. Wilma and Wally discuss the fact that the house needs some repairs. Wilma gives Wally a key and tells him to do whatever he wants with the house. In reliance on her promise to sell the house, Wally sells his home, gets a loan, and has a new roof put on Wilma's house because of leaks that needed to be repaired to prevent further damage. When presented with the written agreements of sale for the home and the car, however, Wilma refuses to sign either. Wally sues, and the case proceeds to trial. Wilma tells the judge in court under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house but that she changed her mind before signing and that she believes she has protection under the statute of frauds. She tells the judge that no agreement was ever made regarding the car and that she also has protection under the statute of frauds regarding that matter.


-Which of the following is true regarding Wilma's statement to the judge under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house?

A) The statement has no effect because of the statute of frauds.
B) The statement would be excluded from consideration as parol evidence but only because it involved an amount in excess of $5,000.
C) The judge would be estopped from considering the evidence.
D) The statement would be classified as an admission and would establish an exception to the statute of frauds involving the agreement on the house.
E) The statement would be excluded from consideration because of the collateral interest rule.

Question 54

"Lake House." Harry has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake. Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000. Harry signs the top of the document. Rebecca does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Harry backs out of the contract, and Rebecca sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Rebecca did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.

-Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end?

A) Harry is correct.
B) Harry is incorrect because while the statute of frauds would require his signature on the document, there is no requirement that the signature be at the end.
C) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
D) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
E) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the parties were clearly identified.

Question 55

Which of the following is false regarding the parol evidence rule?

A) The purpose of the rule is to prevent evidence that substantially contradicts an agreement in its written form.
B) The rule is a rule of evidence.
C) The rule relates to substantive legal issues.
D) The rule is not a unitary concept or rule.
E) The rule is an amalgamation of different rules and conditions.

Question 56

"Lake House." Harry has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake. Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000. Harry signs the top of the document. Rebecca does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Harry backs out of the contract, and Rebecca sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Rebecca did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.

-Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because Rebecca did not sign the document?

A) Harry is correct.
B) Harry is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document.
C) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
D) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
E) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the parties were clearly identified.

Question 57

"Not So Rich Uncle." Bruce is attempting to convince Sally to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Sally reluctantly agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Bruce agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. Bruce and Sally marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Bruce's supposedly rich uncle, Frank, dies. Frank has no living relatives other than Bruce and has a will leaving everything to Bruce who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Bruce agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Frank totaling $10,000. Sally is concerned about Bruce's doing so. Bruce tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Bruce admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry and did not want anything to slow down probate. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Sally. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Frank had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Bruce to inherit. Bruce disavowed his agreement to pay the $10,000 to various creditors of Frank.

-Which of the following is true regarding Bruce's promises to Sally of a Mercedes and a trip?

A) The promises fall within the statute of frauds.
B) The promises do not fall within the statute of frauds because they involve material matters, not matters involving home and children.
C) The promises do not fall within the statute of frauds unless Sally can prove that she would not have married Bruce without the assurance of the Mercedes and the trip.
D) The promises fall within the statute of frauds unless Bruce can prove that Sally would have married him without the assurance of the Mercedes and the trip.
E) The promises would have fallen within the statute of frauds in earlier times in history, but would not fall within the statute of frauds in this day and time.

Question 58

What does the term "parol" in the "parol evidence rule" mean?

A) Words establishing penalties
B) Speech or words, specifically words outside the original writing
C) Oral speech as opposed to written words
D) Written words as opposed to oral speech
E) Signature required

Question 59

"Courtroom Surprises." Wilma agrees to sell Wally her house for $200,000. Wilma, Wally, and the house are all located in Tennessee. She also orally agrees to sell her used car to Wally for $1,000. Wilma and Wally discuss the fact that the house needs some repairs. Wilma gives Wally a key and tells him to do whatever he wants with the house. In reliance on her promise to sell the house, Wally sells his home, gets a loan, and has a new roof put on Wilma's house because of leaks that needed to be repaired to prevent further damage. When presented with the written agreements of sale for the home and the car, however, Wilma refuses to sign either. Wally sues, and the case proceeds to trial. Wilma tells the judge in court under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house but that she changed her mind before signing and that she believes she has protection under the statute of frauds. She tells the judge that no agreement was ever made regarding the car and that she also has protection under the statute of frauds regarding that matter.


-Which of the following is true regarding Wilma's statement to the judge that the agreement to sell the car was covered by the statute of frauds?

A) She was correct.
B) She was incorrect because while the UCC has a provision regarding writings for the sale of certain goods, that provision is not a part of the statute of frauds.
C) She was incorrect because the statute of frauds provision involving the sale of goods only applies to goods costing over $1,500.
D) She was incorrect because the statute of frauds provision involving the sale of goods only applies to goods costing over $2,000.
E) She was incorrect because the statute of frauds provision involving the sale of goods only applies to goods costing over $5,000.

Question 60

The ______ rule is a common law rule that addresses the admissibility of oral evidence as it relates to written contracts.

A) Oral admissibility
B) Oral evidence
C) Parol evidence
D) Frauds evidence
E) Deficient evidence

Question 61

Define the term "admission" in relation to contracts under the statute of frauds. Discuss the pros and cons of the rule on admissions, and whether you think courts should recognize admissions.

Question 62

According to the text, what are the three main purposes of the statute of frauds?

Question 63

Set forth the eight exceptions to the parol evidence rule.

Question 64

What types of contracts does the statute of frauds require to be in writing? Include in your answer contracts, if any, the UCC requires to be in writing.

Question 65

Richard has insurance with ABC Insurer. Richard has a wreck with Susie. The adjuster for ABC Insurer orally agrees to pay Susie $1,000 for the damage to her car. The adjuster, however, gets in trouble with his boss for agreeing to pay too much. He tells Susie that he is backing out of the deal because the agreement is unenforceable on the basis that the statute of frauds requires that a contract to pay the debt of another be in writing. Is the adjuster correct? Why or why not?