Is Smith’s employment contract enforceable? Solution : Smith’s employment contract is not enforceable and Green, the employer wins the case. The points to be noted in this case : 1. It was an oral contract 2. Contract happened on January 26th, Wednesday and Smith was asked to start work on January 31st, Monday. According to One Year Provisions, the terms of the contract should make it possible for performance to occur within one year.
Since Smith was asked to start work four days after the contract was formed, it is not possible to perform within one year.
Also, Since the oral contract has to be completed in one year to be enforceable. In this case, nice the contract cannot be completed in a year it is unenforceable. It would have made a difference if it was a written contract. But, the contract is within the statute of frauds and enforceable because its oral. 2. Rowe was admitted to the hospital suffering from a critical illness.
He was given emergency treatment and later underwent surgery. On at least four occasions, Rower’s two sons discussed with the hospital the payment for services to be rendered by the hospital.
The first of these four conversations took place the day after Rowe was admitted. The sons informed the treating physician that their father had no uncial means but that they themselves would pay for such services. During the other conversations, the sons authorized whatever treatment their father needed, assuring the hospital that they would pay for the services. After Rower’s discharge, the hospital brought this action against the sons to recover the unpaid bill for the services rendered to their father. Are the sons’ promises to the hospital enforceable?
Explain. Solution : Sons’ promises to the hospital is enforceable. The oral conversation with the physician was that they would pay the hospital for their father’s treatment. They did not offer to pay the bill if the father is not able to. The sons take the responsibility to pay the bill, thus becoming Primarily liable. According to Surety Provision- Original Promise, If the promissory makes an original promise by undertaking to become primarily liable, then the statute of frauds does not apply. The contract is enforceable. 3.
Morality and Holmes enter into an oral contract by which Morality promises to sell and Holmes promises to buy Blacker for $10,000. Morality 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, and shall not carry it out. ” Thereafter, Holmes sues Morality for specific performance of the contract. Morality interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and hence unenforceable.
What will be the result? Discuss. Solution : It is enforceable since Morality stated the accurate terms and bargained and signed it thus satisfying the requirement of Statute of Frauds. Holmes wins. 4. Blair orally promises Clay to sell him five crops of potatoes to be grown on Blacker, a farm in Idaho, and Clay promises to pay a stated price for them on livery. Is the contract enforceable? Solution : The contract may or may not be enforceable. Clay was promised to be sold 5 crops of potatoes.
The fact is that potatoes takes five weeks to mature. For the harvest of five crops, the time taken would be 50 weeks. According to One Year Provisions, oral contract has to be completed in one year to be enforceable. 5. Halley, a widower, was living without family or housekeeper in his house in Howell, New York. Burns and his wife claim that Halley invited them to give up their house and business in Andover, New York, to live in his house and care for him. In return, they allege, he promised them the house and its furniture upon his death.
Acting upon this proposal, the Burners left Andover, moved into Hallway’s house, and cared for him until he died five months later. No deed, will, or memorandum exists to authenticate Hallway’s promise. McCormick, the administrator of the estate, claims the oral promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Explain whether McCormick is correct. Solution : Mccormick is right because important piece of contract like will/deed should be a written contract or electronic contract to be enforceable.
Cite this Assignment CaseProblems Essay
Assignment CaseProblems Essay. (2018, May 08). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/assignment-caseproblems/