Moriarty interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and, hence, unenforceable. What result? Discuss.

Jump to Solution
Category:

Moriarty interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and, hence, unenforceable. What result? Discuss.

0
0

Moriarty and Holmes enter into an oral contract by which Moriarty promises to sell and Holmes promises to buy Blackacre for $100,000. Moriarty repudiates the contract by writing a letter to Holmes in which she states accurately the terms of the bargain, but adds “our agreement was oral. It, therefore, is not binding upon me, and I shall not carry it out.” Thereafter, Holmes sues Moriarty for specific performance of the contract. Moriarty interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and, hence, unenforceable. What result? Discuss.

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

The contract between Seller M and Buyer H to buy or sell a specific property was oral, but Seller M denied execute the contract in written form, which can act as a memorandum for the contract.
The written contract is considered as enforceable under the Statute of Fraud rule. This was followed by Seller M and Buyer H has the right to attain benefit of the contract.

Verified Answer

The breach of an oral contract by writing a memorandum in the context of the oral contract leads to the enforceability of that contract, which was compiled by Seller M, under the Statute of Fraud rule. The execution of that specific contract should be done by Seller M.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.