Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

7 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Statute of Frauds - 4 questions
1. Does the K come within the purview of the S/F?
2. If so, did the parties comply with the statute?
3. If not, what are the effects of non-compliance?
4. Are there any applicable mitigating doctrines?
1. Does the K come within the purview of the S/F?
1. Suretyship contracts, - PD, C, S
2. Special promise of executor to answer for the debts of estate out of his own funds
3. Executory Ks for sale of real property (S/A)
CL approach - perennial crops minerals vs trees split. fixed to land real property, annual crop personal property.
UCC approach - more lax (considers anything severed by seller personal property; if buyer severs without causing damage, personal property)
4. Ks for sale of personal property over 5,000
Exceptions: 1) service and construction Ks which combine materials and services (not subject bc they are labor plus material) 2) special/custom manufactured goods- UCC 2-201(3)(a)
5. Ks impossible to complete in one year (evaluated at K formation)
2. If so, did the parties comply with the statute? (1)
Written memo or note satisfies all clauses of S/F
a. Original S/F requirements - complete, correct, signed by D
i. Futuristic language is OK under original S/F
ii. Multiple papers (S/A): reference to writing attached, reference to same subject matter
2. If so, did the parties comply with the statute? (Other methods)
a. Acceptance and receipt - good clause
i. Original S/F - enforceable for all or nothing
ii. UCC - enforceable for amount of goods received
b. Part payment - good clause
i. Original S/F - part payments makes whole K enforceable
ii. UCC - have to pay only for goods received
c. Admission - goods clause - incentive for perjury
a. some states reject - Cal now accepts
d. Part performance - one year clause - evidences K in COMMON LAW
e. Part performance - realty clause
i. seller hands over deed - K enforceable
ii. Buyer does more than pay money (ie improvements) - K enforceable
2. If so, did the parties comply with the statute? (UCC approach)
a. UCC 2-201(1) Applies to property for 5,000 or more
i. Need writing indicating a K has been made by parties and signed by the party that enforcement is sought against
ii. Don't need to mention terms (price, payment, quality) -> if incorrect term, K enforceable up to quantity in writing

b. UCC 2-201(2)
i. Silence is acceptance - A merchant who receives a signed confirmation for an oral K with another party si bound by it as if he'd signed it unless he sends written objection in 10 days

c. UCC 2-201(3) - Ks exempt from S/F requirements
i. Goods specially manufactured
ii. Estoppel by pleading or testimony (D admits K has been made accidentally)
iii. Goods accepted or paid for (enforceable w/o writing for the part which is performed)
3. If not, what are the effects of non-compliance?
1. Executory Ks - S/A
i. Unenforceable (maj)
ii. Void (minority view)
iii. If not provable, no evidence of K
2. Executed Ks - S/F has no effect
4. Are there any mitigating doctrines applicable?
1. Quasi-contract: to prevail, P must have conferred a material benefit to D with expectation of payment, and P was not acting officiously (didn't go to D's house, there was some bargaining before, D asked for it), D breaches, enforcement would not thwart the S/F doctrine. Enforcement limited to restitution interest - just the benefit conferred on D
2. Equitable estoppel
i. used in misrepresentation of fact situations - ie P will invoke EE to overcome D using SF defense if D had deliberately misstated fact.
3. Promissory estoppel - P's reliance must result in a loss other than mere loss of benefit of bargain
a. Majority - allow PE recovery with substantial reliance
b. Minority - don't allow recovery at all with PE