390 likes | 728 Views
Statute of Frauds I. Prof. Merges Contracts – March 1, 2011. Agenda. Types of agreements covered: categories Other requirements Writing Signed. The Agreement. Both can be K’s – in the absence of the SoF. Statute of Frauds (SoF): History. Common law courts, 17 th C
E N D
Statute of Frauds I Prof. Merges Contracts – March 1, 2011
Agenda • Types of agreements covered: categories • Other requirements • Writing • Signed
Statute of Frauds (SoF): History • Common law courts, 17th C • Perjury; “subornation” of perjury • Structure and incentives
Common provisions Cal. Civ. Code § 1624 (a)(1) K cannot be performed w/in 1 yr. (a)(2) Suretyship (a)(3) Lease and other real property transactions
Main Requirements • Writing • Signed – but by whom? • See Cal statute, p. 259
“party sought to be charged” • The party trying to get out of the K; the one the “pro-enforcement” party is “charging” with the K
Why these provisions? • 1 yr • Suretyship • Real property
Chief justice of the Court of King's Bench from 1756 to 1788, was the foremost judicial voice shaping English common law during that era.
“What is surprising about the English common law of the second half of the 18th century is how much is familiar to us today,” he said. “Many of the basic ideas and principles of current American law were forged in this earlier time.” -- Prof. James Oldham, English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield (U.N.C. Press 2004)
Suretyship • What is it?
Strong v. Sheffield • Promissory Note given by wife to satisfy demand made by holder of previous note on husband
What was “the original deal”? Promise to repay Mr. Sheffield Mr. Strong $$
What was “the second deal”? Promise to repay Mr. Sheffield Mr. Strong $$ Promissory Note Mrs. Strong
Suretyship or guarantee • Promise to answer for debt of another
Lender (Creditor) Borrower
Lender (Creditor) Surety-Guarantor Borrower
Lender (Creditor) Surety-Guarantor Borrower
Lender (Creditor) Surety-Guarantor Borrower ????
Q: Is the agreement “within the statute”? • Categories of agreements; see local (state) statute
CR Klewin v. Flagship Props. • Procedural history
CR Klewin v. Flagship Props. • Procedural history • Certified by 2d Circuit to Sup Ct Connecticut
Facts • What was the agreement here?
Agreement • 3/86: “We’ve got a deal”
Agreement • 3/86: “We’ve got a deal” • Dissatisfaction by October, 1987 • New construction mgt firm, March 1988
Estimated duration? • Three to 10 years
Two certified questions • “Indefinite duration” K and the “one year” clause • Contemplated performance more than 1 year but no term stated in the K
Relevance of history • Affects how the court interprets the provisions of the S o F
Relevance of history • Affects how the court interprets the provisions of the S o F • “Courts look with disfavor” – p. 272
Relevance of history • Affects how the court interprets the provisions of the S o F • “Courts look with disfavor” – p. 272 • Connecticut precedent: what trend?
Main question • “performance cannot possibly be peformed within one year” • What does “possibly” mean here?
Holding here • “cannot possibly be performed within one year” means under the express terms of the contract • The K itself rules out performance in less than a year • Not surrounding facts