Question

What did the appellate court rule in the case in the text, Power Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., involving the enforceability of an alleged oral agreement by which the plaintiff assumed a third party's debt owed to the defendant in return for the defendant transferring a licensing agreement to the plaintiff?- That the plaintiff was barred from recovery by the suretyship provision of the statute offrauds.- That the plaintiff could recover because the original agreement between the third partyand the defendant was in writing.- That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the mainpurpose doctrine.- That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the parolevidence rule.- That the plaintiff could recover as a matter of law because the statute of frauds does notapply to suretyship agreements.

Answer 1

The correct answer is letter "C": That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the main-purpose doctrine.

Step-by-step explanation:

Power Entertainment Inc. sued National Football League Properties Inc.(NFLP), saying the other party violated an oral agreement to allow it to assume a third party debt if the other party would allow it to acquire valuable third party business licenses previously held. The Court of Appeals ruled that fraud status did not apply in such cases in Texas, the state where it all took place.