Contracts question -- Easy one

[Citruscide]

Joe and Sylvia are at a singles bar and are getting along nicely. Sylvia makes a comment at how much she likes the dimond pin that Joe is wearing on his lapel. Joe says "Oh, this old thing? It is only made out of glass! I got it for 20 bucks!" As the evening progresses, Sylvia keeps commenting on how she likes the pin and says how well it would go with one of her work suits.

They make an oral agreement, that Sylvia will return to the bar in two days and bring with her $510 dollars for the pin, and Joe will bring the pin.

Joe shows up two days later and Sylvia is not there. If Joe sues to enforce the contract he will be:

A. Successful, because oral contracts for the sale of goods are valid when made between non-merchants.

B. Successful, because he detrimentally relied on her promise to pay by showing up at the bar with the pin.

C. Unsuccessful, because oral contracts for the sale of goods of $500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable.

D. Unsuccessful, because paying $510 for a $20 glass pin is unconsciounable, and voidable on its face.

Word.

C

 

[AAA]

c

 

[manny78]

I'm not gonna touch this one since here we have 1- A civil code 2- a Consummer's Act which makes things pretty different from the other provinces/states that rely on the law of Torts....

 

[RyanH]

c. I remember that specific problem very well from Barbri.

 

[HumorMe]

Unsuccessful because Sylvia is obviously an idiot. If she agreed to pay $510 for a $20 pin.....how can you expect her to find her way back to the singles bar to pay for it?

 

[Citruscide]

I'll let a few more people answer...

Seems as though a couple people here are familiar with the Statue of Frauds!

I expect nothing less from you Ryan.

C

 

[Rockafella Skank]

C seems to be the answer. But I find it difficult to wrap my brain around the notion that an oral contract must be put in writing to be valid.

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

AS a wise man once told me:

VERBAL AIN'T SHIT

 

[DICK_IN_ASS_TIMOTHY]

Unsuccessful because Sylvia is obviously an idiot. If she agreed to pay $510 for a $20 pin.....how can you expect her to find her way back to the singles bar to pay for it?

 

[Rex]

It's not what you know. It's what you can prove. Joe knows Sylvia said it, but can he prove it?

 

[velvett]

Bilateral but neither expressed nor enforceable contract.

C.................ya baby!

 

[The Shadow]

Beauty and intelligence....



I don't get it???


What's the catch??

 

[Citruscide]

The answer is C -- the statute of Frauds dicatates that certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable --- 1. Contracts in Consideration for marriage, 2. Contracts which services will be performed lasting over one year 3. Sale of Goods of $500 or more, 4. Surety agreements (co-signer), 5. and crap, can't remember the others...

Here, it is a transaction between two non merchants for the sale of goods of more than 500 dollars... no partial performance, no justifiable reliance on the sale... K no good.

Velvett -- I have no idea of what you just said.

C