“ Lang claimed that repayment of the loan would "almost certainly" take over a year and that his agreement with Vollmer was, therefore, unenforceable because it was not in writing. Is he correct? Explain.”
A contract is enforceable if it has an offer and acceptance and can be imposed under the common law of contracts in a court of law. A contract is always mutually binding and is assented to certain promises between two parties in a bargain for exchange. However, for a legally binding contract, it’s composed of the offer, acceptance, consideration, and enforceability. However, as per Mr. Lang’s contention in regard to enforceability of the agreement he had made with Ms. Vollmer, this agreement was only in an oral form of agreement and was by no means put down in writing. This, however, does not deny the enforceability of this oral contract. Mr. Lang is not right to claim that this contention is not enforceable because it was not in writing. Contracts may be oral or written. However, oral agreements are difficult to enforce and thus the need for determining the validity or invalidity of a contract before it is declared enforceable or unenforceable (Miceli, 2018). The law provides for oral contract formation which includes modifications and rescission. However despite the exception of this case some contracts such as land agreements can only be enforced only if they are written.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Vollmer’s case can only be executed in a court of law only if this oral contract can prove that there was a binding agreement with an offer and acceptance. In this case, an offer seemed to have been made orally by Vollmer to give a loan of $150,000 to Mr. Lang for a night club business. In addition, there was an acceptance of the offer whereby Mr. Lang had agreed to repay the loan from profits of the business. Additionally, there was meeting of minds where both parties agreed on the terms of repayment. Finally, a consideration was made when money was given to Mr. Lang who was to engage in a legal business. To this regard, therefore, this oral contract was binding and it is enforceable through a court of law. To prove this case, Ms. Vollmer can present documentation of collection attempts such as messages, text messages, or emails which probably she sends to Mr. Lang for the money due. The documentation of the paid $15,000 after 18 months should also act as evidence of an attempt of paying the loan. Therefore, this is an enforceable case of a binding oral contract on loan owed only if the necessary proof is given by Ms. Vollmer.
“ Suppose that a week after Vollmer gave Lang the funds, she sent him an e-mail contains the terms of their loan agreement with her named typed at the bottom. Lang did not respond to the e-mail. Is this sufficient as writing under the Statute of Frauds?”
Yes, this would be legally binding under the Statute of Frauds and would save Ms. Vollmer a great deal in proving the oral contract she had made with Mr. Lang. Apart from the exception of those contracts which are mandatory to provide a written contract under the Statute of Frauds, this same statute provides that for oral contracts its necessary to have some written terms in order to prove the validity of that contract as well as preventing deception and fraud at the same time (Stephenson, 2017). The statute of Frauds allows for a written document to proceed in oral contracts which should contain inclusion of the subject matter which in this case is the terms of an oral contract between Vollmer and Mr. Lang, primary conditions of the deal, as well as signatures of both parties if possible. In this case, if such information sends through the mail by Vollmer to Lang, it could be very helpful in deciding the validity of the oral contract. According to the Statutes of Frauds, Emails can be regarded as an enforceable contract if that email shows the existence of an offer, acceptance by the other party as well as value exchange between the parties (Marson & Ferris, 2018).
“ Assume that at trial finds that the contract falls within the Statute of Frauds. Further, assume that the state in which the court sits recognizes every exception to the statute of Frauds discussed in the chapter. What exception provides Vollmer with the best chance of enforcing the oral contract in this situation?”
Now, in this particular case, since the court in question is in full capacity of adopting the Statutes of Fraud with its exceptions, first we state that different state has different statutes of Frauds. Additionally, the court understands that oral contract is only enforceable under the Statutes of Frauds only if there is any written memorandum to prove that contract. In the case of Vollmer assuming that all requirements of the Statutes of Fraud are met, then there are three exceptions unto which a given oral contract can be enforced without meeting the requirements of written memorandum and a signed contract. These exceptions include; admission, performance and promissory estoppel exception (Fischer, 2011).
Now the performance exception provides Ms. Vollmer with the best chance of enforcing the oral contract in this situation. Underperformance exception, Vollmer can enforce this case under partial performance where the other party, Mr. Lang has already completed a partial payment of $ 15,000 which now can serve as a proof that one party completed his duties partially under the oral contract. By the fact that Mr. Lang has agreed to perform partially in this contract, then he can not assert that the statute of frauds invalidates their oral contract. This is acceptable under the statutes of frauds and thus this case is enforceable.
“ Suppose that at trial, Lang never raises the argument that the parties’ agreement violates the Statute of Frauds and the court rules in favor of Vollmer. Then Lang appeals and raises the Statute of Frauds for the first time. What exception can Vollmer now argue?”
In this case, now, Vollmer can argue under the exception of Promissory estoppel. This is a legal principle under the statutes of frauds which provides that a promise is enforceable by law even if the same promise was made without any formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to another party who the consequently relies on that given promise to the promisor’s detriment. In this case, promissory estoppel will stop Mr. Lang from arguing that the promise of him paying the loan to Ms. Vollmer should not be legally enforced (Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, n.d)
Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, an injured party which in this case is Vollmer who has suffered from a breached contract is able to recover the loss if those losses were as a result of a promise made by a promisor whereby the promise was significant to be acted upon (Macdonald et.al, 2018). In order for the doctrine of promissory estoppel to be valid, several elements must be present and in relation to the present case this is true in that; Lang made a promise that is significant for Ms.Vollmer to act on it, Vollmer still relied upon the promise, the promise in question has suffered a significant detriment and finally relief can only come as a result of Mr. Lang fulfilling this promise.
References
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: Definition, Examples & Elements. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/doctrine-of-promissory-estoppel-definition-examples-elements.html
Fischer, S. (2011). Remarks on two kinds of exceptions: arbitrary vs. structured exceptions. Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar . doi:10.1515/9783110219098.243
Macdonald, E., Atkins, R., & Krebs, J. (2018). 5. Promissory estoppel. Koffman & Macdonald's Law of Contract . doi:10.1093/he/9780198752844.003.0005
Marson, J., & Ferris, K. (2018). Business Law. Law Trove . doi:10.1093/he/9780198766285.001.0001
Miceli, T. J. (2018). When is a contract enforceable? Contemporary Issues in Law and Economics , 89-100. doi:10.4324/9781315103976-13
Stephenson, G. (2017). Statute of Frauds 1677 (29 Chas. II, c. 3). Core Statutes On Contract, Tort & Restitution 2017–18 , 1-308. doi:10.1057/978-1-352-00054-2_1
