BLW 6.2

Card Set Information

Author:
dresmoneybags
ID:
273393
Filename:
BLW 6.2
Updated:
2014-05-06 01:57:41
Tags:
Business Law
Folders:

Description:
6.2
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user dresmoneybags on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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