The default rule of contracts is that many types of agreements, even if oral and not written, are recognized as enforceable contracts (subject to proof or questions of fact). One example would be an oil change for your car. Another example would be the sale of a $100 X-box.
Under the Statute of Frauds, however, certain types of agreements must be in writing to be recognized as enforceable contracts. For this discussion, please post a new thread addressing the following questions:
1. Briefly (in 1-2 sentences) note why this rule called the “Statute of Frauds.”
2. List three types of agreements that must be in writing to constitute an enforceable contract. Do you agree that these types of agreements should require a writing to constitute an enforceable contract? Why or why not?
3. Identify another type of agreement another type of an agreement that does not fall under the SOF, but that you think should, and please explain why. In other words, name an additional type of an agreement that is not currently required to be in writing to constitute an enforceable contract, but for which you would require a writing before recognizing it as a contract.
After posting your notes on these 3 items, please reply (by Wednesday) to the entries of two (any two) other students, adding support for why the other type of contracts should be in writing.
Please be sure to stay on topic and limit your discussion to only the questions posed. Please respect your classmates in the discussion boards, and use only appropriate language, as you would in a professional, business environment. I look forward to reading your posts!
*Your post and two replies are due by this Wednesday, 11:59pm.