Question

Lake House. Harry has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake. Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000. Harry signs the top of the document. Rebecca does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Harry backs out of the contract, and Rebecca sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and because Rebecca did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house. Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end?

Answer 1

Options:

A. Harry is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document.

B. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.

C. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the selling price was referenced.

D. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require Rebecca's signature so long as both the selling price and the type of subject matter involved was referenced.

E. Harry is correct.

Answer:

A) Harry is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document.

Step-by-step explanation:

The purpose of the statue of frauds is to prevent fraud (just like this case) by requiring certain contract to be in writing. The statute of frauds is very specific about requiring contracts that involve rel estate transactions to be in writing. It also includes contracts that last for more than 1 year.

In this case, Harry made the contract in writing and then signed it, it really doesn't matter if he signed it on top, although following formalities it should be signed on the bottom. He would not have been able to sue Rebecca because she didn't sign the contract, but Rebecca can sue Harry because he did sign it.

Answer 2

Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, the judgewould likely allow oral evidence regarding the house at issue in order to clarify an ambiguity