Quiz 11: Defenses to Contract Enforceability
The situations in which the genuineness of assent to a contract's terms be lacking may arise due to fraudulent misrepresentation, duress, mistake, and undue influence. Those individuals who enter with such contracts and are lacking genuine assent and contractual capacity are not void but voidable.
Yes, Jerome can set the contract separately by claiming fraud, unfair upgrading, compulsion, lack of mental ability, and due concern. The behavior of the other flank and discrimination of the end result create this an irrational and partial contract that a court cannot put into effect. Phillip is embarrassed of coercion and can be trapped for whatever he did. Moreover, the contract is void and null as it was retained under pressure. As Jerome is completely reliant on Philip for his livelihood and the contract paybacks the protector by being competent to acquire the land at a price lowers than the market price. This made Jerome feel obliged as he does not have any other alternative.
(a)A statute stipulating the type of contracts that must be in writing only or be evidenced by records is known as Statute of Frauds. Some types of contracts are required to be in writing are • Contracts that involve interests in land • Contracts that cannot be performed within a year from the formation date by their terms • Collateral contracts • Promises made in marriage consideration • Contracts for the sale or lease of goods of amount $500 or above The employment contract between The company and Odin does not belong to any of the above mentioned types. Thus, it does not "fall within" Statute of Frauds. (b)Odin may enforce an oral contract with the exception Promissory Estoppel. The company's president clearly promised its employee that he would be offered 10 percent commission for rest of his life, and that he would not be fires except in case he is dishonest. He justifiably relied on the promise turned down the offer from competing firm. Thus, the employee might be able to enforce the company's promise under the theory of promissory estoppel. The court may estop the company from denying the existence of contract. (c)Yes , "10 percent for life" written at the back of the register receipt does not depict the essential terms of the contract. The subject matter (commission) could not be clearly identified. Moreover, the terms pertaining to firing the employee were also not included. (d)Yes, the court may allow the employee to present parol evidence of president's subsequent promises. The employment contract between the company and the employee was not completely integrated. That is, it was partially integrated containing only some, not all, of the terms on which parties agreed. Thus, parol evidence is admissible for additional essential terms.
There is no answer for this question