Case Problems

Case Problem: Chapter 14.2

This case looks at the statute of frauds as it relates to real property and oral agreements. In this case, the Briggs entered into an oral contract with the Sacketts to sell their home if the Sacketts paid three months of past due mortgage payments and continued to say the future mortgage payments. The Sacketts made the past due payments and the regular mortgage payments. Fifteen years later, the Briggs sued the Sacketts to cancel the oral agreement as a violation of the Statute of Frauds and to have them removed from the house.

The statute of frauds affords that oral contracts for the sale of land are invalid , where, nevertheless, the party seeking to enforce the delivery has somewhat executed the contract, so as to perform recession unjustly and unfairly, the contract may be outside the operation of the statute( Larson, 2003). Additionally the oral agreement is not part of the statute of frauds because it was partially performed due to the Sacketts dependence on the oral agreement. As well, the Sacketts did do the performance required by the agreement. Finally the time which had passed (15 years), shows the relevant "equitable consideration" of specific performance (Larson, 2003). Based on this information, part performance of the oral agreement is enforceable. So the Sacketts would win.

Case Problem: Chapter 16.10

This case deals with the issue of intentional interference with contractual relations. Pacific Gas and Electric Company went into an agreement with Placer County Water Agency to buy hydroelectric power which cannot be ended until 2013. When energy prices increased, the price PG & E paid for energy was much less than the cost of energy from other places. Now Bear Stearns and Company has offered to help Agency get out of the agreement in return for a portion of the profits and the privilege to guarantee any new securities issued by agency. Additionally Bear Stearns consented to pay the legal fees encountered by agency in proceedings concerning the attempt to get out of the PG & E agreement.

Intentional interference with contractual relations means that the defendant is responsible to pay damages for actions intended to impede the plaintiff's contractual relations with a third party (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, 2013). In an intentional interference claim such as this, the burden is on the plaintiff (PG & E) to prove the elements of the claim rather than on the defendant (Bear Stearns) to prove that its acts were justified. To succeed on the claim, plaintiff must prove four elements: "(1) that a valid contract existed, (2) that defendant had knowledge of the contract, (3) that defendant acted intentionally and improperly, and (4) that plaintiff was injured by the defendant's actions (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, 2013).

In this case the defendant (Bear Stearns) would win. This is because the only interference claimed is that Bear Stearns persuaded the possibility of a lawsuit. There was no breach of contract threatened.

Case Problem: Chapter 18.2

This case deals with Article 2 of the UCC and whether or not this case involves goods or services. In this case, Mr. Gulash purchased an above ground swimming pool which was installed in his back yard by Stylarama Inc. The contract was signed and it listed that Stylarama would "furnish all labor and materials to construct a wave crest brand pool, and furnish and install a pool with vinyl liners" (Cheeseman, 2010). The contract did not list the cost