Lake House.Harry has two houses,a house on the lake and a house in town.Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake.Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000.Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000.Harry signs the top of the document.Rebecca does not sign at all.No merger clause is included in the contract.Harry backs out of the contract,and Rebecca sues him.He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and because Rebecca did not sign at all.He also tells the judge that,at any rate,the agreement referred to the house in town,not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule,he had the right to identify the correct house.Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because Rebecca did not sign the document?

A) Harry is incorrect because he is the one being sued,and he signed the document.
B) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require Rebecca's signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
C) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require Rebecca's signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
D) Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require Rebecca's signature so long as both the selling price and the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
E) Harry is correct.

Question

Jeannie Heerlein · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : A, Explanation :  While it is standard for both parties to sign the agreement,because the writing is being offered as proof of an agreement,only the party against whom action is sought needs to have signed the writing.If only one party signed,the agreement is enforceable against the signing party but not against the non-signing party.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions