The Presumption of Liberty - Assignment Example

The Presumption of Liberty When making a contract, the parties to it generally make a verbal agreement of the terms of the contract and commit to fulfilling those conditions (Barnett 2005, p.135). Whether written or verbally made, a contract remains effective and has no flaws as long as parties fulfil the conditions in the agreement. However, the law requires certain agreements be put down in writing in order to serve as evidence of the existing conditions between the parties. This requirement is what constitutes Statutes of frauds. Statutes of frauds were initially passed in the national assembly in parliament of England back in 1677 to prevent frauds and perjuries, and were then later adopted in United States of America. This statute ensures that parties to the contract fulfil their promises to each other as stipulated in agreement with defaulting. Therefore, statutes of fraud do not in itself make the contract valid but serves as an evidence of the agreement between the parties hence can make the contract enforceable (Miller, Harvey & Parry 1998, p.487). It also serves to prevent one of the parties from claiming beyond what the agreement offer to them. Should one of the parties to the agreement default in performance of his or her duties, the statues of frauds will apply to ensure that that person has discharged his or her obligation (James 2003, p.20). This is contrary to a verbal agreement whereby, due to lack of evidence one party may fail to perform the duties of the agreement and yet there is no means to prove that the party has indeed breached the agreement (Barnett 2005, p.146). Whereas most contracts can be enforced without the requirement of a statute of fraud, there are specific agreements, which must be included in a statute in order to be enforceable. This report shall explore various contracts which fall within statutes of frauds and cases that have been dealt with in the court involving the statute. In addition, the report shall focus on the impact of the statues of frauds and what would happen of parties failed to write down the terms of their contracts in cases which “fall within the statute.” The law requires that when individuals are making a contract they should put down all the terms of their agreement in writing in order to that no party who takes advantage of the other by failing to perform either some part of the contract or the by totally doing nothing in fulfilment of their contractual obligations (Barnett 2005, p.165). Therefore, with terms of the agreement put down in writings, this forms a basis in which the court can make a decision on such cases and enforce the performance of the contract. However, if in case the parties did not include their contractual duties to each other in writing, the court may decide to consider the duties discharged by the plaintiff as partial performance and use this as a base to prove that there was relationships formed between the parties (James 2003, p.23) This seems to contradict the essence of statutes of fraud since the party who has done partial performance of the contract may have done so with ill intent of deceiving the other party even if there was no such agreement made between them. Another limitation involving the statutes of frauds is the requirement is in the applicability of that statute in specific cases (Barnett 2005, p.173). Since the statute is meant to protect innocent party against deceit by the other party, limited application of the statute in specific agreement makes the statute inadequate to protect the parties absolutely in all cases. Those intending to deceive their contract partners can still do so in if “the agreement does not fall within the statute.” The rationale for having written conditions of an agreement is to guarantee the parties of the discharge of obligations of the contract by the party to the agreement (James 2003, p.20). This is because the parties are in fear of legal charge against non performance of the contract due to the existing evidence in the statute. The statutes also enable the court to acquire appropriate evidence in which to apply in providing a solution to the conflicts between the parties (Yackle 2007, p. 197). Therefore, the court does not have to request for further evidence of the matter from the parties since all details they require are stipulated in the statute. Contracts are deemed to fall within statutes of frauds if their enforceability and performance depends on the conditions stated in the statutes (Barnett 2005, p.182). On the other hand, the contract, which does not fall within the statutes are those which does not require their terms to be stipulated in the statutes as a prerequisite for the enforcement and performance. Therefore, although al contracts are complete irrespective of whether they fall within the statute or does not fall within the statutes, the statutes of frauds only states the terms of the contract which falls in it to ensure the parties strictly follow what the statues requires (Yackle 2007, p. 211). An example of contracts that fall within statutes includes; long term whose duration of execution extends more than a year, contracts in which a person accepts the liability of debts belonging to another person and agrees to pay when it falls due, a contract in which the parties are not obliged to discharge their tasks for their entire lives, contracts involving the sale of goods with a value exceeding more than $500 and he contract involving the transfer of interest in real property. In Chomicky v. Buttolph, 147 Vt. 128, 131, 513 A.2d 1174, 1176 (1986), Buttolph had an offer to sell some cottage and lakeside lot to Chomicky. The two parties entered into agreement drafted by the buyer's lawyer, and the performance of the agreement was dependent on the acquisition of subdivision permit by the seller. The parties also made a verbal agreement that, in case of absence of the permit, the process of sale would still continue as agreed upon in the statutes of frauds. However, the seller was denied permit, and he decided not to sell the land to the buyer against the oral agreement they had formed. This made the buyer sue the seller in the law court requiring the seller to perform the verbal contract according the agreement they had made i.e. he requested for “specific performance of the contract” by the seller. The issue in this case was consideration as to the effect of the verbal agreement on the statutes of frauds, and whether the verbal agreement could alter the stance stated in the written terms of a contract. When issuing a verdict, the justice ruled out the possibility of the verbal agreement could cause any alteration to the position of the statutes of frauds. According to the decision of the court, it was possible for a person to agree to sell the land or real property verbally but apply the statutes of fraud in defence for the possibility of being deceived. However, the justice strengthened his ruling by emphasizing that only the claim of “part performance of the contract” can alter the position of the statutes of frauds. The fact that the buyer had prepared to purchase the real property in itself cannot bring into play the principle of partial performance. He further stated that even the buyer was in possession of the property or had paid the money cannot cause a verbal contract to override the statutes of frauds. Therefore, in order for the principle of partial performance of verbal contract to override the effects of statutes of frauds, the buyer of the real property must prove ownership of the property and that he or she has made some modifications in the property that has increased its value. This case is evidence that verbal agreement has little influence, as opposed to statutes of frauds or written agreement. It gives the issues in the case and takes into consideration the effort that one of the parties has used in discharging the terms of the contract before they can consider the application of this doctrine. The case in Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48, 110 N.E.2d 551 (N.Y. 1953) satisfies the issues as to whether an agreement should be embodied in single documents or whether different pieces of information written in different sections of the paper but if they are all brought together they can satisfy all the terms of the contracts will be considered as effective as if tin a single paper. In the above case, Crabtree formed a contract of employment with Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation. In their employment agreement, Arden offered a two year employment and the conditions were that Crabtree would earn an annual salary and would receive twenty thousand dollars for the first six months, last six months of the first year she would earn twenty five thousand dollars and in the last year of employment she would get a total of thirty thousand dollars exclusive or expenses. During the employment period, Arden’s personal secretary drafted the memorandum on telephone order blank. A “payroll change card” was activated and sent to the payment department. In effect to the agreement, Crabtree was paid the first salary, but nothing more was given. The employee sued the employer for violating the contract. However, the employer defended herself under statute of frauds. The ruling issued by the court was in favour of the plaintiff and requested the employer to give a compensation of fourteen thousand dollars. The issue of statutes of frauds in this case is whether the existence of several pieces of written agreement both resulting from verbal agreement met the requirements of statutes of frauds (Miller, Harvey & Parry 1998, p.376). The court affirmed those different pieces of writings and the verbal conversation all met the requirements of statutes of frauds since they indicated the amount of salary to be paid, the duration of employment, duties of the employee and the remuneration. The court further argued that it was not relevant that the conditions of a contract should be embodied in a single document. What mattered was the intention that the document was meant to affect the contract and this agreement was enforceable (Catherine 2004, p. 76) The court stated that in case of a contract in which some written pieces were not appended a signature, the additional of verbal message to such contract should be treated as a complete agreement as long as the content is related to the subject stated in the contract. The statues of frauds have limited application in cases involving transfer of possession in real property, contract for the sale of goods with a value beyond $500, a contract that is to remain effective beyond one year but without lifetime commitment. Statutes of frauds require all the relevant matter of the agreement must be in writing. However, in case the facts of the agreement was not put in words, the court may recognize the fact that one of the parties had partly performed the part of the contract in reliance to the verbal agreement as an evidence of the existence contract even without statutes of fraud. Bibliography Barnett, R 2005, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty; Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 122-321 Catherine, P 2004, Identity Theft Statutes: Which Will Protect Americans the Most? Albany Law Journal Review, Vol. 67(4). Pp. 65-98 Chomicky v. Buttolph, 147 Vt. 128, 131, 513 A.2d 1174, 1176 (1986) Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp, 305 N.Y. 48, 110 N.E.2d 551 (N.Y. 1953) James, S 2003, When Actions Speak Louder Than Words: The Case for a Quasi-Estopped Exception to the Statute of Frauds: The Review of Litigation Journal, Vol. 22(1). Pp. 14- 32 Miller, C Harvey B & Parry, D 1998, Consumer and Trading Law: The Text, Cases, and Materials; Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pp. 234-654 Yackle, L 2007, Regulatory Rights: The Supreme Court Activism, the Public Interest, and the Making of Constitutional Law: University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. 34-215 Read More