Question

Greed Co. telephoned Stieb Co. and ordered 30 tables at $100 each. Greed agreed to pay 15% immediately and the balance within 30 days after receipt of the entire shipment. Greed forwarded a check for $450, and Stieb shipped 15 tables the next day, intending to ship the balance by the end of the week. Greed decided that the contract was a bad bargain and repudiated it, asserting the statute of frauds. Stieb sued Greed. Which of the following will allow Stieb to enforce the contract in its entirety despite the statute of frauds?

A. Greed admitted in court that it made the contract in question.
B. Greed paid 15% down.
C. Stieb shipped 15 tables.
D. The contract is not within the requirements of the statute of frauds.

Answer 1

Stieb Co. can enforce the contract in its entirety despite the statute of frauds because they shipped 15 tables.

Step-by-step explanation:

The correct option that will allow Stieb to enforce the contract in its entirety despite the statute of frauds is option C: Stieb shipped 15 tables.

Under the statute of frauds, certain contracts, including contracts for the sale of goods over a certain value, must be in writing to be enforceable. In this case, the contract between Greed Co. and Stieb Co. for the purchase of 30 tables falls under the statute of frauds.

However, the partial performance exception to the statute of frauds allows for the enforceability of a contract if the buyer has accepted and received part of the goods. In this case, Stieb Co. shipped 15 tables to Greed Co. This constitutes partial performance, and therefore, Stieb Co. can enforce the contract in its entirety despite the statute of frauds.