A contract was entered into on June 1, 2007. Performance is to begin on January 10, 2008, and end on August 15, 2008. According to the Statute of Frauds, this contract does not require a writing.
Is this statement true or false?
2007-12-09 14:42:14 · 2 answers · asked by BruteForceChamp 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Under Statute of Frauds, contracts that, by its terms, cannot be completed within one year. (Please note that the fact that a contract is not completed within one year does not mean that it is voidable under a statute of frauds. For the statute to apply, the actual terms of the contract must make it impossible for performance to be completed within one year)
Does that mean from the time from the formation of the contract to the start of the performance of the contract is less than a year, the contract doesn't have to be in writing?
2007-12-09 15:05:00 · update #1
False.
A contract which, by its terms, cannot be performed within a year of its making, must be evidenced in writing to be enforceable.
Now, if you rewrite the terms as, "Performance to begin on Jan 10, 2008, and end no later than August 15, 2008," then it would not be within the statute of frauds, because as far as the contract terms are concerned, performance could be completed Jan 11, 2008, which would be within a year the contract was formed.
2007-12-09 15:15:59 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Placid 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Might be either.
The information given does not include the amount of the contract, or whether real estate is involved.
Richard
2007-12-09 14:48:07 · answer #2 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋