Question

Pam wrote Matz setting forth specifications for a printing press of a unique nature to be constructed to order and asked for a firm price offer if Matz were interested. Matz wrote Pam 1 week later, "Offer to construct as per your letter for twenty thousand seven hundred dollars cash on November delivery. Offer terminates 2 days. Matz." The letter omitted the words "seven hundred" when delivered to Pam. Pam immediately phoned Matz and stated, "I accept as stated in your letter." Matz said, "Done." Based on the above facts and assuming no further writing,

A. Neither party is bound because of mutual mistake.
B. If Matz completed the contract and delivered the press to Pam, Matz would be deemed to have made an implied warranty against infringement of any patent held by others.
C. No contract resulted because Matz did not intend to sell the press for $20,000.
D. Pam probably cannot assert the statute of frauds as a defense to a suit by Matz if she notifies Matz that she will not take the goods after Matz has completed about 40% of the work.

Answer 1

The correct answer is D. Pam probably cannot assert the statute of frauds as a defense to a suit by Matz if she notifies Matz that she will not take the goods after Matz has completed about 40% of the work.

Step-by-step explanation:

The correct answer is D. Pam probably cannot assert the statute of frauds as a defense to a suit by Matz if she notifies Matz that she will not take the goods after Matz has completed about 40% of the work.

In this scenario, both Pam and Matz entered into a contract for the construction and delivery of a printing press. The letter sent by Matz constituted a valid offer, and Pam accepted the offer by immediately phoning Matz and stating her acceptance. This constitutes a valid contract between the two parties.

According to the statute of frauds, certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. However, an exception to the statute of frauds is the part performance exception, which states that if a party has partially performed their obligations under a contract, the contract can still be enforceable even if it is not in writing. In this case, if Matz has completed about 40% of the work, Pam would not be able to assert the statute of frauds as a defense.