2/16/2006Class 171 Class 17, Thursday, Feb. 16 Announcements one handout today—statute of frauds worksheet Friday Today’s agenda Statute of frauds Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Winternitz v. Summit Hills Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice

2/16/2006Class 172 Today is a great day to learn about the statute of frauds.

2/16/2006Class 173 Statute of Frauds England, 1677—”An Act for prevention of frauds and perjuries” In U.S., every state has adopted some version of S/F

2/16/2006Class 174 What policies does this serve

2/16/2006Class 175 What policies does this serve 1.prevent fraud/perjury; problem, though, with over- and underinclusiveness

2/16/2006Class 176 What policies does this serve 1.prevent fraud/perjury; problem, though, with over- and underinclusiveness 2.administrative/judicial efficiency

2/16/2006Class 177 What policies does this serve 1.prevent fraud/perjury; problem, though, with over- and underinclusiveness 2.administrative/judicial efficiency 3.certainty for parties

2/16/2006Class 178 Overall structure/approach 1.Is the K within S/F?

2/16/2006Class 179 Overall structure/approach 1.Is the K within S/F? 2.If so, has it met the requirements of S/F?

2/16/2006Class 1710 Overall structure/approach 1.Is the K within S/F? 2.If so, has it met the requirements of S/F? 3.If not, does it fall under an exception?

2/16/2006Class Is it within S/F? see p. 296 in casebook—reproduces Rest. §110 You are responsible for: (1)(b) suretyship provision (1)(d) land provision (1)(e) one year provision (2)(a) UCC If not within S/F, then defense fails; if within, go to Question 2

2/16/2006Class If within S/F, has it met its requirements? 1.written memorandum evidencing an agreement 2.identifying the parties and subject matter 3.containing material terms and conditions 4.signed by the party to be charged If all of these requirements are met, then defense fails

2/16/2006Class If requirements of S/F not met, does an exception apply? If no, then defense succeeds and K is not enforceable If yes, then defense fails (does not preclude enforcement) We will get to exceptions with today’s second case

2/16/2006Class Is it within S/F? see p. 296 in casebook—reproduces Rest. §110 You are responsible for: (1)(b) suretyship provision (1)(d) land provision (1)(e) one year provision (2)(a) UCC If not within S/F, then defense fails; if within, go to Question 2

2/16/2006Class 1715 Statute of Frauds Worksheet 1.K for sale of land. 1.5.Written K for sale of land. 2.K for lease of apartment for two years. 3.K for lease of apartment for one year, starting today. 4.K for lease of apartment for a one year term, starting one month from now. 5.K for the construction of a building. The building is completed two years after K formation.

2/16/2006Class C enters into a contract to sell tires to A. C delivers the tires to A. A puts the tires on a truck and sells the truck with tires to B. B promises to A that B will pay C.

2/16/2006Class C is a car dealer. A and B walk into the store. A is a minor. B is A's friend and has reached the age of majority. A wants to buy a car. C enters into a contract with A and B where A purchases the car and B guarantees A's obligation.

2/16/2006Class A is a company that owes money to C. B is a major customer of A. A's loan to C is past due and C is threatening foreclosure. B promises to C that if C will extend the time for repayment, B will guarantee A's obligation.

2/16/2006Class A agrees to work for B for five years. 10.A agrees to work for B for five years, if A lives that long. 11.A agrees to work for B for five years, but if A dies, the contract is to be terminated. 12.A agrees to work for B for A's life. 12.5A agrees to work for B for B's life.

2/16/2006Class Carl Coan, a first-year law student, entered into an oral agreement with Victor Orsinger, under which Coan was to be resident manager of an apartment development owned by Orsinger "until Coan completed his law studies as a student duly matriculated in Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. or was obliged to discontinue these studies."

2/16/2006Class A agrees to work for B on a Sunday 13 months from now. 14.5In satisfaction of a debt owed by A to B, A agrees to work for B for 13 months or to paint B's portrait.

2/16/2006Class A promises B that if B agrees to not drink, gamble, and smoke for five years, that A will give B $5000. B agrees. 16.A promises B that if B forbears from drinking, gambling, and smoking for five years, that A will give B $5000.

2/16/2006Class A agrees to sell B a lawn mower for $ A agrees to sell B a car for $ A agrees to sell B 10 widgets for $50 each. 20.A agrees to mow B's lawn for $500. (It's a really big lawn.)

2/16/2006Class 1724 Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. New York Court of Appeals 305 N.Y. 48, 110 N.E.2d 551 (1953)

2/16/2006Class 1725 Who is suing whom? For what kind of damages? What is the subject matter of the transaction? What is the legal basis for the claim? What is the factual basis for the claim? Arguments/defenses?

2/16/2006Class 1726 What happened at the trial court level? First appeal? Second appeal? Issue? Authorities/Rule? Application to facts in case? What policies does it further/ignore?

2/16/2006Class 1727 Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 73 Md. App. 16, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987), cert denied, 312 Md. 127, 538 A.2d 778 (1988).

2/16/2006Class 1728 Who is suing whom? For what kind of damages? What is the subject matter of the transaction? What is the legal basis for the claim? What is the factual basis for the claim? Arguments/defenses?

2/16/2006Class 1729 What happened at the trial court level? What happened on appeal? Issue? Authorities/Rule? Application to facts in case? What policies does it further/ignore?

2/16/2006Class 1730 Part performance exception Why doesn’t the part performance exception apply in this case? How does this court get around this technical limitation of the part performance exception?

2/16/2006Class 1731 clause-specific exceptions land one-year provision surety (tomorrow)

2/16/2006Class 1732 general exceptions next case

2/16/2006Class 1733 Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice Supreme Court of Alaska 934 P.2d 1313 (1997)

2/16/2006Class 1734 Who is suing whom? For what kind of damages? What is the subject matter of the transaction? What is the legal basis for the claim? What is the factual basis for the claim? Arguments/defenses?

2/16/2006Class 1735 What happened at the trial court level? This appeal? Issue? Authorities/Rule? Application to facts in case? What policies does it further/ignore?

2/16/2006Class 1736 Application of s/f 1.Is K within s/f? 2.Have the requirements been met? (a)written memorandum evidencing an agreement (b)identifying the parties and subject matter (c)containing material terms and conditions (d)signed by the party to be charged 3.If not, does it fall within an exception? (a)clause specific exceptions (b)general exceptions

2/16/2006Class 1737 § 139. Enforcement By Virtue Of Action In Reliance (1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce the action or forbearance is enforceable notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach is to be limited as justice requires.

2/16/2006Class 1738 § 139. Enforcement By Virtue Of Action In Reliance (2) In determining whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the availability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly cancellation and restitution; (b) the definite and substantial character of the action or forbearance in relation to the remedy sought; (c) the extent to which the action or forbearance corroborates evidence of the making and terms of the promise, or the making and terms are otherwise established by clear and convincing evidence; (d) the reasonableness of the action or forbearance; (e) the extent to which the action or forbearance was foreseeable by the promisor.

2/16/2006Class 1739 Narrow estoppel

2/16/2006Class 1740 Narrow estoppel Comment f to §178 in first Restatement

2/16/2006Class 1741 Narrow estoppel Comment f to §178 in first Restatement 1.statement re: statute of frauds requirements

2/16/2006Class 1742 Narrow estoppel Comment f to §178 in first Restatement 1.statement re: statute of frauds requirements e.g., There is a writing that satisfies s/f. This K isn’t subject to s/f.

2/16/2006Class 1743 Narrow estoppel Comment f to §178 in first Restatement 1.statement re: statute of frauds requirements 2.promise re: statute of frauds requirements

2/16/2006Class 1744 Narrow estoppel Comment f to §178 in first Restatement 1.statement re: statute of frauds requirements 2.promise re: statute of frauds requirements e.g., I will put this in writing.

2/16/2006Class 1745 Broader promissory estoppel e.g., Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice; Restatement 139

2/16/2006Class 1746 End of Class Friday326-46