This I don't understand. To me it looks Dunne did give consideration to make it enforceable. He made a request (in good faith) to Cook and Cook agreed to the request. Specifically what type of consideration was Dunne required to give here to make it enforceable? A new contract since it is governed by the common law??
– – – – – – – – – – –
Dunne and Cook signed a contract requiring Cook to rebind 500 of Dunne's books at 80¢ per book. Later, Dunne requested, in good faith, that the price be reduced to 70¢ per book. Cook agreed orally to reduce the price to 70¢. Under the circumstances, the oral agreement is:
a. Enforceable, and proof of it is admissible into evidence.
b. Enforceable, but proof of it is inadmissible into evidence.
c. Unenforceable, due to the Statute of Frauds, and proof of it is inadmissible into evidence.
d. Unenforceable, because Dunne failed to give consideration, but proof of it is otherwise admissible into evidence.
Explanation
Choice “d” is correct. Since this contract is for services (rebinding books) the agreement is governed by the common law of contracts. Under the common law of contracts a contract modification is treated like a separate contract and requires consideration. Nevertheless, proof of the modification would be admissible into evidence. The parol evidence rule prohibits introduction of prior or contemporaneous oral statements and prior written statements to vary the terms of a fully integrated written contract (i.e., one purporting to reflect the whole agreement). It does not prohibit introduction of evidence of subsequent agreements, such as the modification here.
Choices “b” and “a” are incorrect. The oral agreement is unenforceable because a contract to rebind books is a service contract, which is governed by the common law. At common law, modification of a contract must be supported by consideration, and no consideration was given for the modification here. On the other hand, proof of the oral agreement attempting to modify the contract would be admissible under the parol evidence rule because that rule does not bar introduction of evidence that a contract was modified after it was made.
Choice “c” is incorrect. The Statute of Frauds makes service contracts unenforceable unless they are evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged if the contract cannot be performed within a year. The contract here does not indicate that it cannot be performed within a year. Moreover, proof of the oral modification would be admissible into evidence because the parol evidence rule does not bar admission of evidence that a written contract was subsequently modified.
B - 81
A - 87
R - 73
F - July 5th
.