1. Green was the owner of a large department store. On Wednesday, January 26, he
ID: 390817 • Letter: 1
Question
1. Green was the owner of a large department store. On Wednesday, January 26, he talked to Smith and said, "I will hire you to act as sales manager in my store for one year at a salary of $48,000. You are to begin work next Monday." Smith accepted and started work on Monday, January 31. At the end of three months, Green discharged smith. On May 15, Smith brought an action against Green to recover the unpaid portion of the $48,000 salary. Is Smith's employment contract enforceable? Please explain 2. Rowe was admitted to the hospital suffering from a critical illness. He was given emergency treatment and later underwent surgery. On at least four occasions, Rowe's two sons discussed with the hospital the payment for services to be rendered by the hospital. The first of these four conversations took place the day after Rowe was admitted. The sons informed the treating physician that their father had no financial means but that they themselves would pay for such services. During the other conversations, the sons authorized whatever treatment their father needed, assuring the hospital that they would pay for the services. After Rowe's discharge, the hospital brought this action against the sons to recover the unpaid bill for the services rendered to their father. Are the sons' promises to the hospital enforceable? Please explain 3. Yokel, a grower of soybeans, had sold soybeans to Campbell Grain and Seed Company and other grain companies in the past. Campbell entered into an oral contract with Yokel to purchase soybeans from him Promptly after entering into the oral contract, Campbell signed and mailed to Yokel a written confirmation of the oral agreement. Yokel received the written confirmation but did not sign it or object to its content. Campbell now brings this action against Yokel for breach of contract upon Yokel's failure to deliver the soybeans. Is the agreement binding? Please discuss.Explanation / Answer
Answer 1:- Answer: One Year Provision. No, decision in favor of Green. The oral contract of employment between Green and Smith was entered into on Wednesday, January 26, but Smith was not required to begin work until Monday, January 31, five days after the making of the contract. The agreement was thus not capable of performance within one year from the day on which it was made and is within the statute of frauds. The contract is, hence, not enforceable. Where a contract of service is for the term of a year beginning or which may begin on the day of the making of the contract, the statute of frauds is inapplicable. An oral contract for a year's services, as here, to begin more than one day after the contract is entered into is impossible of performance within one year from the date of making and is therefore unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Part performance of an oral contract not performable within a year does not take a contract out of the statute of frauds.
Answer 2:- Answer: Suretyship Provision: Collateral Promises. Decision for the hospital; the promises are enforceable. The promise of the sons is not to answer for the debt of another. The oral promise of the sons is an original undertaking by themselves to pay the hospital expenses to be incurred by Rowe. The sons did not guarantee to pay the hospital in the event Rowe did not pay the bill; they agreed, instead, in the first instance, to pay the father's bill. Peterson v. Rowe, 63 N.M. 135, 314 P.2d 892 (1957).
Answer 3:- Judgment for Campbell—the agreement is binding. Under the Code a written confirmation between merchants satisfies the statute of frauds provision of the Code against the recipient as well as the sender unless the recipient gives written notice of his objection within ten days after receiving the confirmation. Yokel, however, insists that he is not a "merchant" within the meaning of the Code, and, therefore, the written confirmation provision is not applicable. The term "merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind sold, or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill particular to the practices or goods involved. Yokel is a dealer in soybeans and hence is a merchant within the meaning of the Code. The written confirmation to which Yokel failed to object, therefore, satisfies the statute of frauds provision of the Code. Campbell v. Yokel, 20 Ill.App.3d 702, 313 N.E.2d 628 (1974)
KINDLY RATE THE ANSWER AS THUMBS UP. THANKS A LOT.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.