auUncategorized

Order this paper written from scratch on discount

 

Downspout Drainage Company Vs Earl

With respect statute of fraud, Downspout Drainage Company and Earl’s contract are enforceable, thus Earl can recover $800 under two major provisions. First, according to the statute of fraud a contract that requires more than a year to complete should be put in writing. Considering this provision, the contract under consideration was done in less than a year and thus it is enforceable as the statute on fraud does not require a contract such as this to be put in writing (Morrison 211).

Secondly the statute of fraud gives exceptions to contracts that one party has partially  fulfilled. According to the statute, a contract is enforceable is one party has done his part. In the case under consideration, Earl has fulfilled his part of the contract thus making it enforceable (Morrison 212).

In addition to that, the statute provides that a contract is enforceable if one party has incurred costs in the process of meeting the requirements of the contract. If Earl can prove that he incurred some costs in setting up the company website and troubleshooting the operating system, the contract will be enforcable. Considering the two situations, Earl can recover $800 on the ground that the contract is partially fulfilled and he has already incurred costs in providing services to DDC (Morrison 211).

In conclusion, the contract between Downspout Drainage Company and Earl does not meet the Statute of Fraud for a contract to be in writing. The contract is also subject to exceptions on grounds that it is partially fulfilled and Earl has incurred some cost in keeping his part of the contract. Based the above grounds, the contract is enforceable and Earl can recover $800.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downspout Drainage Company Vs Earl

With respect statute of fraud, Downspout Drainage Company and Earl’s contract are enforceable, thus Earl can recover $800 under two major provisions. First, according to the statute of fraud a contract that requires more than a year to complete should be put in writing. Considering this provision, the contract under consideration was done in less than a year and thus it is enforceable as the statute on fraud does not require a contract such as this to be put in writing (Morrison 211).

Secondly the statute of fraud gives exceptions to contracts that one party has partially  fulfilled. According to the statute, a contract is enforceable is one party has done his part. In the case under consideration, Earl has fulfilled his part of the contract thus making it enforceable (Morrison 212).

In addition to that, the statute provides that a contract is enforceable if one party has incurred costs in the process of meeting the requirements of the contract. If Earl can prove that he incurred some costs in setting up the company website and troubleshooting the operating system, the contract will be enforcable. Considering the two situations, Earl can recover $800 on the ground that the contract is partially fulfilled and he has already incurred costs in providing services to DDC (Morrison 211).

In conclusion, the contract between Downspout Drainage Company and Earl does not meet the Statute of Fraud for a contract to be in writing. The contract is also subject to exceptions on grounds that it is partially fulfilled and Earl has incurred some cost in keeping his part of the contract. Based the above grounds, the contract is enforceable and Earl can recover $800.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downspout Drainage Company Vs Earl

With respect statute of fraud, Downspout Drainage Company and Earl’s contract are enforceable, thus Earl can recover $800 under two major provisions. First, according to the statute of fraud a contract that requires more than a year to complete should be put in writing. Considering this provision, the contract under consideration was done in less than a year and thus it is enforceable as the statute on fraud does not require a contract such as this to be put in writing (Morrison 211).

Secondly the statute of fraud gives exceptions to contracts that one party has partially  fulfilled. According to the statute, a contract is enforceable is one party has done his part. In the case under consideration, Earl has fulfilled his part of the contract thus making it enforceable (Morrison 212).

In addition to that, the statute provides that a contract is enforceable if one party has incurred costs in the process of meeting the requirements of the contract. If Earl can prove that he incurred some costs in setting up the company website and troubleshooting the operating system, the contract will be enforcable. Considering the two situations, Earl can recover $800 on the ground that the contract is partially fulfilled and he has already incurred costs in providing services to DDC (Morrison 211).

In conclusion, the contract between Downspout Drainage Company and Earl does not meet the Statute of Fraud for a contract to be in writing. The contract is also subject to exceptions on grounds that it is partially fulfilled and Earl has incurred some cost in keeping his part of the contract. Based the above grounds, the contract is enforceable and Earl can recover $800.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downspout Drainage Company Vs Earl

With respect statute of fraud, Downspout Drainage Company and Earl’s contract are enforceable, thus Earl can recover $800 under two major provisions. First, according to the statute of fraud a contract that requires more than a year to complete should be put in writing. Considering this provision, the contract under consideration was done in less than a year and thus it is enforceable as the statute on fraud does not require a contract such as this to be put in writing (Morrison 211).

Secondly the statute of fraud gives exceptions to contracts that one party has partially  fulfilled. According to the statute, a contract is enforceable is one party has done his part. In the case under consideration, Earl has fulfilled his part of the contract thus making it enforceable (Morrison 212).

In addition to that, the statute provides that a contract is enforceable if one party has incurred costs in the process of meeting the requirements of the contract. If Earl can prove that he incurred some costs in setting up the company website and troubleshooting the operating system, the contract will be enforcable. Considering the two situations, Earl can recover $800 on the ground that the contract is partially fulfilled and he has already incurred costs in providing services to DDC (Morrison 211).

In conclusion, the contract between Downspout Drainage Company and Earl does not meet the Statute of Fraud for a contract to be in writing. The contract is also subject to exceptions on grounds that it is partially fulfilled and Earl has incurred some cost in keeping his part of the contract. Based the above grounds, the contract is enforceable and Earl can recover $800.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downspout Drainage Company Vs Earl

With respect statute of fraud, Downspout Drainage Company and Earl’s contract are enforceable, thus Earl can recover $800 under two major provisions. First, according to the statute of fraud a contract that requires more than a year to complete should be put in writing. Considering this provision, the contract under consideration was done in less than a year and thus it is enforceable as the statute on fraud does not require a contract such as this to be put in writing (Morrison 211).

Secondly the statute of fraud gives exceptions to contracts that one party has partially  fulfilled. According to the statute, a contract is enforceable is one party has done his part. In the case under consideration, Earl has fulfilled his part of the contract thus making it enforceable (Morrison 212).

In addition to that, the statute provides that a contract is enforceable if one party has incurred costs in the process of meeting the requirements of the contract. If Earl can prove that he incurred some costs in setting up the company website and troubleshooting the operating system, the contract will be enforcable. Considering the two situations, Earl can recover $800 on the ground that the contract is partially fulfilled and he has already incurred costs in providing services to DDC (Morrison 211).

In conclusion, the contract between Downspout Drainage Company and Earl does not meet the Statute of Fraud for a contract to be in writing. The contract is also subject to exceptions on grounds that it is partially fulfilled and Earl has incurred some cost in keeping his part of the contract. Based the above grounds, the contract is enforceable and Earl can recover $800.

.

 

 

 

 

 

Downspout Drainage Company Vs Earl

With respect statute of fraud, Downspout Drainage Company and Earl’s contract are enforceable, thus Earl can recover $800 under two major provisions. First, according to the statute of fraud a contract that requires more than a year to complete should be put in writing. Considering this provision, the contract under consideration was done in less than a year and thus it is enforceable as the statute on fraud does not require a contract such as this to be put in writing (Morrison 211).

Secondly the statute of fraud gives exceptions to contracts that one party has partially  fulfilled. According to the statute, a contract is enforceable is one party has done his part. In the case under consideration, Earl has fulfilled his part of the contract thus making it enforceable (Morrison 212).

In addition to that, the statute provides that a contract is enforceable if one party has incurred costs in the process of meeting the requirements of the contract. If Earl can prove that he incurred some costs in setting up the company website and troubleshooting the operating system, the contract will be enforcable. Considering the two situations, Earl can recover $800 on the ground that the contract is partially fulfilled and he has already incurred costs in providing services to DDC (Morrison 211).

In conclusion, the contract between Downspout Drainage Company and Earl does not meet the Statute of Fraud for a contract to be in writing. The contract is also subject to exceptions on grounds that it is partially fulfilled and Earl has incurred some cost in keeping his part of the contract. Based the above grounds, the contract is enforceable and Earl can recover $800.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order a custom paper written from scratch on practically any subject

Qualified writers only

Plagiarism free guarantee

It will take you just 2 minutes

Discount Code: Disc30