Filmmaker, a retailer of video equipment, telephoned Bootlegger and ordered a $1

Question

Filmmaker, a retailer of video equipment, telephoned Bootlegger and ordered a $1,500 videotape recorder for his business. Bootlegger accepted Filmmaker’s order and sent him a copy of the purchase memorandum that stated the price, quantity, and model ordered and that was stamped “order accepted by Bootlegger.” Filmmaker, however, did not sign or return the purchase memorandum and refused to accept delivery of the recorder when Bootlegger delivered it to him four weeks later. Bootlegger sued Filmmaker. Filmmaker raised the statute of frauds as a defense. Decide.

Explanation / Answer

the purpose of a "statute of frauds" is, as the name suggests, to prevent injury from fraudulent conduct. There is some criticism of the continued existence of these statutes, as they are often used by parties who freely entered into fair contracts yet wish to avoid having to fulfill their agreements. At the same time, the abuses these statutes were designed to prevent are quite real, so a strong argument remains to keep them in place. It is also arguably good public policy to require that parties to certain significant transactions, such as those of long duration or which involve real estate, reduce their agreements to writing. Writing will both reduce the chance of future litigation, and also give the parties the opportunity to take a second look at the terms and conditions of their agreement before it becomes final.

In this case, Filmmaker can prevail because there is no written agreement made or signed to enforce the transaction. Had there been a document, than bootlegger can choose to litigate and enforce this signed agreement in court, and filmmaker would have to pay.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.