1 george mason school of law contracts i xxii. statute of frauds f.h. buckley [email protected]

84
1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley [email protected]

Upload: reynold-freeman

Post on 31-Dec-2015

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

1

George Mason School of Law

Contracts I

XXII. Statute of Frauds

F.H. Buckley

[email protected]

Page 2: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The Statute of Frauds: Why 1677?

2

Party on, dudes!

Page 3: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Why 1677?

3

Juries as fact-finders

Page 4: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Why 1677?

4

Juries as fact-finders Interested parties not admissible as

witnesses

Page 5: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Why 1677?

5

Juries as fact-finders Interested parties not admissible as

witnesses If that made the Statute of Frauds

necessary then, why do we need it now?

Page 6: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The problem: A trap for the unwary?

6

Page 7: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What’s the purpose of the SoF?

7

• McIntosh at 517

Page 8: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What’s the purpose of the SoF?

Evidentiary Antifraud

88

Page 9: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What’s the purpose of the SoF?

Evidentiary Antifraud

Cautionary Reflects seriousness of contracting

99

Page 10: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What’s the purpose of the SoF?

Evidentiary Antifraud

Cautionary Reflects seriousness of contracting

Channeling Distinguishing enforceable contracts

1010

Page 11: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What’s the purpose of the SoF?

Evidentiary Antifraud

Cautionary Reflects seriousness of contracting

Channeling Distinguishing enforceable contracts

[Economizing on court costs?]

1111

Page 12: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The Statute of FraudsRestatement § 110 (a) a contract of an executor or administrator to answer for a duty of his

decedent; (b) a contract to answer for the duty of another (the suretyship

provision); (c) a contract made upon consideration of marriage (the marriage

provision); (d) a contract for the sale of an interest in land (the land contract

provision); (e) a contract that is not to be performed within one year from the

making thereof (the one-year provision). (2) The following classes of contracts, which were traditionally subject

to the Statute of Frauds, are now governed by Statute of Frauds provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code:

(a) a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more (Uniform Commercial Code § 2-201);

(c) a contract for the sale of personal property not otherwise covered, to the extent of enforcement by way of action or defense beyond $5,000 in amount or value of remedy (Uniform Commercial Code § 1-206).

12

Page 13: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Restatement § 110MY LEGS

M: consideration of marriage; Y: not to be performed within one year; L: sale of an interest in land; E: a contract of an executor; G: sale of goods for $500 or more; S: a contract to answer for the duty of

another (the suretyship provision)

13

Page 14: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What is the sanction for non-compliance?

Restatement § 110(1): not enforceable absent a memorandum in writing … signed by the party to be charged.

14

Page 15: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

What is the sanction for non-compliance? UCC § 2-201(1) Except as otherwise provided in

this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker.

15

Page 16: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

So when would we want to require a writing?

What do the categories of Restatement § 110 tell us?

M: consideration of marriage; Y: not to be performed within one year; L: sale of an interest in land; E: a contract of an executor; G: sale of goods for $500 or more; S: a contract to answer for the duty of another

(the suretyship provision)

16

Page 17: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The Statute of FraudsWhat’s its Purpose? McIntosh

Major Contracts

Possibility of a ill-considered promise

1717

Page 18: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Marriage Settlements The old action for breach of promise

18

Page 19: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Marriage Settlements

Restatement § 124 Within the SoF if the consideration is a

“marriage or a promise to marry” unless only “mutual promises of two persons to marry each other”

19

Page 20: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Marriage Settlements

A and B promise to marry and A reneges? Not in SoF if only “mutual promises of

two persons to marry each other”

20

Page 21: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Marriage Settlements

A promises to settle Blackacre upon B when she marries A: Restatement 124, Illustration 1

21

Page 22: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Marriage Settlements

Restatement §§ 110(1)(c), 124 A promises to settle Blackacre upon

B when she marries A: Illustration 1 What does the reference to

“consideration” exclude?

22

Page 23: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Marriage Settlements

A promises to settle Blackacre upon B when she marries A: Illustration 1

What does the reference to “consideration” exclude? Cf. illustration 5

23

Page 24: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Promises not to be performed within One Year

Restatement § 110(1)(e) What is the rationale for the rule?

24

Page 25: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Promises not to be performed within One Year

What is the rationale for the rule? An aide-memoire? Or a significant contract?

2525

Page 26: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Promises not to be performed within One Year

What is the rationale for the rule? An aide-memoire? Or a significant contract? Do you agree with Farnsworth at

521?

2626

Page 27: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” What does the Π have to assert to win in

McIntosh at 515?

27

Page 28: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” What does the Π have to assert to win in

McIntosh? Not terminable at will, but for a fixed term

2828

Page 29: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” What does the Π have to assert to win in

McIntosh? Not terminable at will, but for a fixed term What that term might be

2929

Page 30: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” What does the Π have to assert to win in

McIntosh? Not terminable at will, but for a fixed term What that term might be

Gee, let’s say one year

3030

Page 31: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” What does the Π have to assert to win in

McIntosh? Not terminable at will, but for a fixed term What that term might be But then Δ asserts the promise is not

unenforceable by virtue of the Statute of Frauds

3131

Page 32: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” It’s Feb. 5, 2014. I ask you to work for me

from March 1, 2014 until March 1, 2015

3232

Page 33: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” It’s Feb. 5, 2014. I ask you to work for me

from March 1, 2014 until March 1, 2015 Restatement § 130(1) Where any promise in

a contract cannot be fully performed within a year from the time the contract is made, all promises in the contract are within the Statute of Frauds until one party to the contract completes his performance.

3333

Page 34: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” It’s Feb. 1, 2014. I ask you to repaint the

ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which likely will take five years.

3434

Page 35: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

It’s November 1, 2012. I ask you to repaint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which likely will take five years. Restatement § 130(1) Where any promise in a

contract cannot be fully performed within a year from the time the contract is made

3535

Page 36: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

How does the one-year rule work?

“Not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” I insure your house against fire for five years

without a writing. Three years have elapsed. Restatement § 130, illustration 1.

3636

Page 37: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Land: 110(1)(d)

37

“Tis the only thing worth fighting for, worth dying for”

Page 38: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Is land different?

What do real estate agents make you do if you want to buy a house?

38

Page 39: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Is land different?

What do real estate agents make you do if you want to buy a house? Written offers throughout Closing

39

Page 40: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Is land different?

Restatement § 125 “A promise to transfer to any person any

interest in land” Qu. Present conveyances?

40

Page 41: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Is land different?

Restatement § 125 “A promise to transfer to any person any

interest in land” Qu. Leaseholds? Cf. 125(4)

41

Page 42: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Goods worth more than $500

Restatement § 110(2)(a) → UCC § 2-201 a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or

more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

42

Page 43: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Suretyship

Seller of Ferrari

Idiot, Doting Parent Spendthrift Childstands surety

4343

Page 44: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Suretyship

Obligee

Principal (obligor)

4444

Page 45: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Suretyship

Obligee (promisee)

Surety for Principal Principal (obligor)(promisor)

4545

Page 46: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Suretyship Agreements

Restatement § 112 The promisee (Ferrari seller) is an

obligee of the other’s duty (owed money by the child)

The promisor is a surety for the other (parent gurantees child’s debt to Ferrari owner)

The promisee knows or has reason to know of the suretyship relation (Ferrari seller knows of guarantee)

4646

Page 47: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Executors

Restatement § 111: “if a similar contract to answer for the duty of a living person would be within the SoF to answer for the duty of another”

Piggybacks on the suretyship provision

47

Page 48: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Executors

Restatement § 111: “if a similar contracts to answer for the duty of a living person would be within the SoF to answer for the duty of another”

Piggybacks on the suretyship provision Cf. Illustrations 1 and 2

48

Page 49: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Getting around the SoF

Estoppel Part Performance Note or memorandum in writing

4949

Page 50: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Will estoppel work against the SoF?

Restatement § 139(1). A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce the action or forbearance is enforceable notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach is to be limited as justice requires.

50

Page 51: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Will estoppel work against the SoF? Restatement § 139(2) In determining whether injustice

can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the availability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly cancellation and restitution; (b) the definite and substantial character of the action or forbearance in relation to the remedy sought; (c) The extent to which the action of forbearance corroborates evidence of the making and terms of the promise, or the making and terms are otherwise established by clear and convincing evidence; (d) the reasonableness of the action or forbearance; (e) the extent to which the action of forbearance was foreseeable by the promisor.

51

Page 52: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Was McIntosh a proper case for estoppel?

52

Oh, the hardship!!!

Page 53: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Was McIntosh a proper case for estoppel?

53

What do you think would have happened if McIntosh had asked for a written contract?

Page 54: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Are salesmen given tenure?

54

Ron Popeil and the Veg-o-matic

54

Page 55: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Was McIntosh a proper case for estoppel?

55

If you’re Murphy, how do you react to the decision?

55

Page 56: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Was McIntosh a proper case for estoppel?

56

Should estoppel mimic the bargain the parties would likely have struck?

56

Page 57: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Is land different?

Restatement § 125 “A promise to transfer to any person any

interest in land” What counts as reliance? Schwedes

at 521 Securing financing? The offer to send the purchase price?

57

Page 58: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Part Performance and Land

Cf. Restatement § 129 The party to be charged “has so changed

his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific performance”

5858

Page 59: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Can you distinguish Schwedes from McIntosh?

Restatement § 129 Buyer gives seller purchase price. Can

buyer have specific performance? Cf. Illustration 1

5959

Page 60: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Can you distinguish Schwedes from McIntosh?

Restatement § 129 Buyer gives seller purchase price. Can

buyer have specific performance? Cf. Illustration 1 Contrast Illustration 3

6060

Page 61: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Can you distinguish Schwedes from McIntosh?

But cf. Restatement § 129 Buyer gives seller purchase price. Can

buyer have specific performance? Cf. Illustration 1 Contrast Illustration 3 Restatement § 139(2)(a): “the availability of

other remedies”

6161

Page 62: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The “note or memorandum in writing”

Restatement § 131. Unless additional requirements are prescribed by the particular statute, a contract within the Statute of Frauds is enforceable if it is evidenced by any writing, signed by or on behalf of the party to be charged, which (a) reasonably identifies the subject matter of the contract, (b) is sufficient to indicate that a contract with respect thereto has been made between the parties or offered by the signer to the other party, and (c) states with reasonable certainty the essential terms of the unperformed promises in the contract.

62

Page 63: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The UCC on the “note or memorandum in writing”

UCC § 2-201(1)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

63

Page 64: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

The “note or memorandum in writing”

What is a signature? Cf. Restatement § 134: “any symbol made

or adopted with an intention, actual or apparent, to authenticate the writing as that of the signer” Cf. Illustrations 1 and 3

64

Page 65: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti at 525

65

Melform products

Page 66: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was this within the SoF?

66

Page 67: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was this within the SoF? One year Sale of Goods?

67

Page 68: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was this within the SoF? One year Sale of Goods? Why might it matter which it is?

68

Page 69: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

In what sense is this not like a sale of goods? Cf. UCC 2-105(1)

Sale of goods or distributorship agreement? Which one fits better (predominant purpose)? Both statutes? A mixed contract (pick and choose)?

69

Page 70: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

Who is the party to be charged?

70

Page 71: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was the first writing “signed” by Anchor?

71

Page 72: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was the first writing “signed” by Anchor? Typed initials “SS” on Steve Schneider’s

draft “Topics for Discussion”

72

Page 73: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

UCC § 1-201(37) Signed “includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.”

Restatement § 134 (“any symbol made or adopted with an intention, actual or apparent, to authenticate a writing”)

Illustrations 1 and 3

73

Page 74: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was the first writing “signed” by Anchor? Typed initials “SS” Did it matter that this was a pre-

contractual draft?

74

Page 75: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was the first writing “signed” in Monetti? Typed initials “SS” Did it matter that this was a pre-

contractual draft? Restatement § 136: “at any time before or

after the formation of the contract”

75

Page 76: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was the first writing “signed” in Monetti? Typed initials “SS” Did it matter that this was a pre-

contractual draft? UCC§ 2-201(1): “has been made”

76

Page 77: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

How was the first writing “signed” in Monetti? Typed initials “SS” Did it matter that this was a pre-

contractual draft? Posner’s three cases on 526: how to tell

them apart?

77

Page 78: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

What about contracts accepted by email?

78

Page 79: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

UCC § 1-201(37) Signed “includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.”

Restatement § 134 (“any symbol made or adopted with an intention, actual or apparent, to authenticate a writing”)

79

Page 80: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

What about the internal “summary agreement” by Raymond Davis?

80

Page 81: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

What about the internal memo? Δ’s letterhead suffices

81

Page 82: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

What about the internal memo? Δ’s letterhead suffices Is Restatement § 132 applicable?:

Several writings are integrated if one is signed and the circumstances indicate they belong to the same transaction

82

Page 83: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

What about the internal memo? Δ’s letterhead suffices How did Π obtain this? Is Restatement § 132 applicable?

Posner: probably not, since they don’t refer to each other (527)

Posner: “we are permitted to connect them” (529)

83

Page 84: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I XXII. Statute of Frauds F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

Monetti

What was the part performance? Restatement § 139(2)(b) “definite and

substantial character of the action”) UCC § 2-201(3)(c) (goods “received and

accepted”)

8484