The Statute of Frauds

The Statute of Frauds

Student’s Name

Institution

The Statute of Frauds

Introduction

The case of Johnny and Mark is under the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds refers to the requirement that certain types of contracts can be memorialized in writing, signed by the party to be charged with sufficient content to evidence the contract. The case between Johnny, Mark and Salesman qualified to be under the Statute of Frauds since the contract of sales of the lawn mower that was over $ 500. Secondly, the case also qualifies to be under Statute of Frauds since one of the parties in the case became surety by acting as a guarantor for another individual’s debt or obligations. These conditions make the case enforceable in the court of law. These conditions qualify the case study to be enforced in a court of law if another party has not paid the obligation as oral agreement. The paper would discuss case study of Johnny and Mark and their impending court case. The paper would also apply the statute of frauds under the case.

Explanation of the Case Study

Johny and Mark are best friends who are neighbors as well. Johnny needed to buy a lawn mower that was relatively modest, and thus, he decided to shop for an affordable model. Coincidentally, his friend, Mark is also in need of lawn that could mow his larger lawn than Johnny’s lawn (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The two friends decide to buy a lawn mower together. They both agree to purchase a lawn mower worth $10,000 together. Since they were running low on cash, Johnny talked to the salesmen for the extension of the loan to purchase lawn mower only if Mark would orally contract to stand as surety for Johnny if the payments are not made on time (Cornell University Law School, 2010). Under these conditions Mark was acting as the surety and therefore, he should pay if Johnny defaulted not to pay. Mark uses the lawn mower more than Johnny. However, Johnny failed to make the payments and decides to sue Mark under oral contract

The Disposition of the Case

The case between Johnny, Mark and Salesman qualified to be under the Statute of Frauds since the contract of sales of the lawn mower that was over $ 500 (Mann & Roberts, 2016). Secondly, the case also qualifies to be under Statute of Frauds since one of the parties in the case became surety by acting as a guarantor for another individual’s debt or obligations. Despite, Statute of Fraud is written down sufficiently or agreed orally (Mann & Roberts, 2016, p. 303). I believe that Mark should have paid for the two months that Johnny defaulted since he was acting as surety for Johnny. Therefore, the salesman is right to take Mark to court rather than Johnny.

The case in which Johnny did not pay for two months, he should have alerted Mark to exercise his duty or obligation as the surety to pay the loan (Mann & Roberts, 2016). Despite, the fact that Mark used the lawn mower more than Johnny does not mean that, Johnny could just pass his obligation to pay for the loan. Furthermore, under the statute of frauds, the agreement between Mark, Johnny, and salesman was oral, and it can enforce in a court of equity if the part performance doctrine is satisfied (Mann & Roberts, 2016). In this jurisdiction, the salesman must prove that when the buyers (Johnny and Mark) bought the lawn mower, Johnny used Mark as his surety and therefore, Mark should have paid if Johnny defaulted.

In conclusion, the case is simple since Johnny was only extended the loan if he made Mark his surety. The oral contract makes the case legally binding and thus, taking Mark to the court of equity is the right call. Johnny, on the other hand, is on the wrong side of the law. It is not legally binding to inform the surety of an impending loan to be paid, but Johnny should have been courteous enough to alert Mark of his default. Despite, Mark using the lawn mower than Johnny, does not make it culpable for paying the loan.

References

Cornell University Law School. (2010). Uniform Commercial Code; § 2-201. Formal Requirements; Statute of Frauds. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-201

Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2016). Business Law and the Regulation of Business. Cengage Learning.