Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
6.2 Garland Comp Inc. v. Roofco Comp & Rasor
- Contracts that requires writings is a contract for the debt of another.
- The main purpose was for Rasor's purpose.
6.2 Main purpose rule
- What was the original intent of the contact?
- This could make the Statue of Fraud Prevention void dependent on what the main purpose was.
Case: Garland sold materials to Roofco but Roofco didn't pay for the materials and argued.
- Oral promise made by Roofco to pay but 9 mos later still had not paid.
- Rasor brought MO Statue of Frauds stating that if the agreement was not in writing then it was not enforceable.
6.2 Garland countered
- Rasor's promise was an original promise and thus was not within the Statues of Frauds
- District Court found Garland and entered judgment against Rasor for the amount of the debt
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview