Case Study: BLAW Final Paper

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Case Study: BLAW Final Paper
* Always on the MOVE!
* Neel never had a valid, enforceable contract with Amazone.com as a result of the May 10 discussion because the oral agreement does not meet the requirement of the statute of frauds.
Statute of frauds vary from one state to another, but some contracts must be in writing for them to be enforceable. Collateral contracts, such as promises to answer for or guaranty the debt or duty of another person must be in writing for them to be enforceable. Neels did not have a written contract with Amazone.com and considering the nature of his job, the oral agreements do not meet the requirements of the statute of fraud. According to the statute of fraud, a written contract, signed by both amazon.com and Neel, would have satisfied the statute of fraud. What suffices in a written contract are a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought; a confirmation such as invoice to aid her relocation; or several other documentations that proved her salary had indeed increased from $225,000 to $300,000 per annum. Written and signed agreements are enforceable but oral agreements like that of Neels and Amazone.com are not.
* Even if the oral promise made by Smithsonian and Patel on May 10 could have been binding, these promises were not included in the July 1 written contract and, therefore, any such promise are not enforceable.
The promises between Neel and Amazone.com are not binding. The general purpose of the law is to provide evidence, in all areas of complexity. To some degree, laws serve as a caution to people who enter contracts and “to create a climate in which parties often regard their agreements as tentative until there is a signed writing.” Neel failed to sign the first contract which was supposedly meant to make the oral promise binding and therefore the July 1 contract was least likely to protect her case. The fact the oral promise was not included in the July 1 contract, Neel should have been cautious. Neel was interested in a relocation plan that she missed the most important part of the July 1 contract which substantially negated the whole agreement.
* The July 1 contract between Amazone.com and Neel is valid and enforceable, and therefore, Amazone.com can legally terminate Neels employment, even aft...