Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
1. Which points will be relevant to the decision in favor of the best friend?
The next week, the best friend secured a bank commitment to enable him to purchase Greenfield. The best friend immediately brought an appropriate action against the man to compel him to convey Greenfield to the best friend. The following points will be raised during the course of the trial: the construction of the contract as to the time of performance, the best friend's ability to perform, and the parol evidence rule.
Three days later, the man received an offer of $40,000 for Greenfield. He asked his best friend if he had raised the $20,000. When the best friend answered, «Not yet,» the man told him that their deal was off and that he was going to accept the $40,000 offer.
A man owned Greenfield, a tract of land. His best friend wanted to buy Greenfield and offered $20,000 for it. The man knew that his best friend was insolvent, but replied, «As a favor to you as an old friend, I will sell Greenfield to you for $20,000 even though it is worth much more, if you can raise the money within one month.» The best friend wrote the following words, and no more, on a piece of paper: «I agree to sell Greenfield for $20,000.» The man then signed the piece of paper and gave it to his friend.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. The call of this question asks a hypothetical: IF the best friend wins the lawsuit against the man, WHICH legal doctrine or concept is most relevant to this outcome? The best way to answer a question like this is to work backward and identify which legal doctrine or concept is the decisive issue for the best friend.
The Statute of Frauds requires that a contract for the sale of land consists of a writing signed by the party to be charged. In this case, such a writing exists, having been signed by the man. However, the contract merely states that the man agrees to sell the land for $20,000. It does not indicate whether there are any additional provisions to the agreement (such as the time for performance, which was only verbally addressed by the parties). Further, despite the fact that the man has received a better offer, it appears that his best friend is now ready to perform. As such, all three aspects of this case: the parol evidence rule, the time for performance issue, and the friend's ability to perform are necessary to come to a decision in this case.
A is incorrect. During trial, it will be necessary to consider the parol evidence rule with regard to whether the written agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties. However, the decision would also concern the time for performance issues and the ability of the friend to pay.
B is incorrect. The time for performance issues must be addressed in the decision, in addition to whether the best friend has a month to raise $20,000. However, the friend's ability to perform also will be dispositive in the decision.
C is incorrect. The best friend's ability to perform must be considered because he must raise $20,000 to meet his own obligation. However, the decision would also hinge on the above-mentioned factors.