In July 2008, the Fuglebergs agreed to purchase from Triangle Ag 352.5 tons of urea fertilizer at a cost of $660 per ton and 135 tons of MES-15 fertilizer at a cost of $1,100 per ton. No terms of the contract were put in writing. The Fuglebergs prepaid the $381,150 purchase amount. The Fuglebergs later contended that Triangle's agents told them at the time they agreed to the purchase that they could rescind the contract at any time by remitting $50 for each ton of undelivered fertilizer plus payment of accrued interest. In November 2008, the Fuglebergs attempted to rescind the contract with Triangle, but Triangle refused to cancel the contract, stating that it had already ordered the fertilizer. The Fuglebergs filed suit against Triangle for rescission and other claims. Both parties admitted the existence of the contract in court. One of Triangle's defenses was that the statute of frauds barred the Fuglebergs' contract claims. Did it?

Question

Business

Trigger

14 August, 13:56

In July 2008, the Fuglebergs agreed to purchase from Triangle Ag 352.5 tons of urea fertilizer at a cost of $660 per ton and 135 tons of MES-15 fertilizer at a cost of $1,100 per ton. No terms of the contract were put in writing. The Fuglebergs prepaid the $381,150 purchase amount. The Fuglebergs later contended that Triangle's agents told them at the time they agreed to the purchase that they could rescind the contract at any time by remitting $50 for each ton of undelivered fertilizer plus payment of accrued interest. In November 2008, the Fuglebergs attempted to rescind the contract with Triangle, but Triangle refused to cancel the contract, stating that it had already ordered the fertilizer. The Fuglebergs filed suit against Triangle for rescission and other claims. Both parties admitted the existence of the contract in court. One of Triangle's defenses was that the statute of frauds barred the Fuglebergs' contract claims. Did it?

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Kamryn Long · Answer 1

Yes, since the statute of frauds requires that contracts over $500 must be in writing and signed.

Explanation:

The statute of frauds requires that certain contracts must be done in writing and they have to be signed by the parties involved.

In this case, the Fuglebergs prepaid the goods and before they were delivered they decided to cancel the oral contract. Since the amount of money involved is very large, much larger than the $500 limit imposed by the statute, the contract should have been written.

In this case, if the Fuglebergs hadn't prepaid the goods, then the contract would have been invalid. Since both parties admitted that a contract existed, but they do not agree on the specific terms. Since Fuglebergs actually performed their part (gave consideration to Triangle), no one can deny it existed. But unless the Fuglebergs have some type of proof that the contract terms that they say were agreed actually are real, then there is no way they can prove their claim.

The most likely outcome is that the goods will be delivered since that is the only thing that both parties admitted as being part of the contract.