1 / 29

SoF II

This document discusses the application of the Statute of Frauds and the part performance exception in the case of Richard v. Richard. It explores the elements of part performance and the requirements for possession, improvements, and partial payment. Additionally, it examines the UCC's reasonable time requirement for response to a merchant's confirmation and the concept of estoppel in the context of the UCC. The document also touches on the record/writing requirement and the liberal interpretation of the UCC's quantity term.

jilll
Download Presentation

SoF II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SoF II Contracts – Prof Merges March 3, 2011

  2. Statute of Frauds • “Within the statute”? • “Satisfies the statute?”

  3. Richard v. Richard

  4. Richard v. Richard • Where are we procedurally? • What are the facts?

  5. Facts • Alleged oral agreement to purchase a home • Any writing at all?

  6. Additional facts • Weekly payments to father (Norman) in addition to rent payments • Total: about $5000

  7. Improvements • New doors • Bannister • Floors, other things

  8. Opinion • Begin with an exception to the S o F • Part performance

  9. What does part performance demonstrate?

  10. What does part performance demonstrate? • Shows existence of the K – why begin performing if there is no K? • Also (or in the alternative), a question of fairness: protecting the reliance interest, preventing unjust enrichment

  11. What are the elements of the part performance exception? • Possession • Improvements • Pmt of substantial part of purchase price

  12. Are these all required? Or any one of the 3? • A, B, and C: additive • A, B, OR C: alternative • Necessary/sufficient?

  13. Possession • Present here? • What is the issue? • What does the court say?

  14. Improvements • Will any improvements do? • What else is required?

  15. Partial payment • How much is enough? • How much here? What was Norman’s argument? What did the court say?

  16. UCC 2-201 • The Code’s S o F • Basic rule; 2-201(2), reasonable time requirement for response to a merchant’s confirmation

  17. St. Ansgar Mills, Inc. v Streit • History • Facts

  18. 2-201(1) and (2) • PP. 285-286

  19. At issue here • “confirmation within a reasonable time” provision of 2-201(2) • Other cases: was the time frame here reasonable? – p. 293

  20. Why did Dist Ct rule as it did? • Facts and circumstances here

  21. Estoppel and the UCC • Statutory drafting and unintended effects

  22. Monarco v Lo Greco • History • Facts

  23. Facts! • Christie vs. Carmen

  24. Policy • Reliance • Restitution

  25. Record/writing requirement • “All essential terms” vs. “memorandum of agreement”

  26. But even the UCC’s quantity term is liberally described • Mis-stated quantity term irrelevant to overall enforceability; enforcement limited to quantity stated, however • UCC § 2-201, Comment 1

More Related