LAW575 Contract Paper

1293 words 6 pages
Contract Paper
Danny Davidson sold a single family home to Paul and Priscilla Peterson. A long-term relationship between Danny and Paul is the basis for not including a written agreement. The simple contract was made orally and only included the legal object and the amount to be paid. Danny did not disclose a dispute with his neighbor over boundary lines or include information about a soil subsidence in the front yard he claims not to have known about.
Contract Elements
Four elements are necessary for a contract to exist. According to Kubasek et al., (2012) “These elements are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object,” (p. 304). The agreement consists of an offer from one party and an acceptance from
…show more content…

If it is decided that Danny should pay for the loss due to the soil issue he many have to pay more than $65,000 in compensatory damages. If the Petersons decide to try for rescission and restitution Danny would be responsible for reimbursing them for the amount paid on the house as well as the amount paid toward the bathroom and landscaping, but he would get the house back.
Statute of Frauds and New Contract Creation
The statute of frauds is helpful to businesses because its requirements clear ambiguity in contract agreements. According to Kubasek (2012) “Because the statute requires a writing as evidence of the contract, a claim to an oral contract for the sale of land is not enough to prove such a contract existed,” (p. 408). The contract between the Petersons and Danny was not written and did not contain the elements required to satisfy the statute of frauds. For the contract to be in compliance a written contract would be required because the total price was over $500. According to Kubasek (2012) “Agreements for a sale in which the total price is $500 or more are required by the UCC, Section 2-201, to be recorded in a written contract or a memorandum,” (p. 409).
Alternative Dispute Resolution
This situation is not appropriate for trial because the court costs and time would not be worth the outcome. Alternative dispute resolution is most appropriate for this situation