Select Page

Contracts
St. Louis University School of Law
Nelson, Camille A.

I. Illegality / Violation of Public Policy
A. Void K
B. Can be raised by court on its own initiative
C. In the Matter of Baby M
1. Illegal K
2. Would violate public policy to allow K’s like this
3. Surrogate mother had power of revocation
4. Compare to Acedo
5. K is illegal, not criminal
D. A.C. v. C.B.
1. K’s around family can be valid once family exists
2. Public policy considers the best interest of the child (BIOC)
II. Statute of Frauds
A. Void K
1. If a promise or agreement falls into one of the following categories, then it falls “within” the statute of frauds
a. Promise of an executor to answer for debt of decedent
b. Promise to answer for the debt of another
c. Agreement made in consideration of marriage
d. Contract for the sale of an interest in land
e. Agreement that is not to be performed within one year of the making thereof
f. Agreement for the sale of goods over $5000
2. To satisfy the statute of frauds, it is not necessary to prove parties created a written K, only need to have a description of the agreement, and only need signature of the party against whom the K is being enforced
a. K can be enforceable against party who signed it and not be enforceable against the other party who may not have signed it
B. Statute of Frauds exists today because it encourages people to make written records of K’s
C. Metz v. Wyoming Beverages
1. Requirements K
a. Exclusive dealer/supplier
2. UCC 2-201
a. K for more than $5000 is not enforceable without writing
i. Unless party against whom enforcement is sought admits in pleadings, testimony, etc. that a contract for sale was made
aa. Extrinsic evidence to determine if K existed
AA. Custom and trade usage – Oglebay
D. Statute of Frauds (SOF) is inapplicable when there is at least part performance
1. Purpose is to prevent enforcement of K’s, not to repudiate them
E. Synthesis for SOF
1. Oral K’s can be enforceable
a. Exceptions are K’s under SOF which require written K’s (UCC 2-201)
i. Land
ii. More than one year to perform
iii. Transactions for more than $5,000
b. Writing does not have to be formal
i. Can be oral first, written later (not contemporaneous)
F. SOF que

to provide “reasonable accommodations” for those with disabilities
B. Emancipation of minors:
1. Marriage
2. Military
3. Moving out of parents’ home
4. Judicial request
C. Halbman v. Lemke
1. Infancy Doctrine allows a minor to disaffirm a K for a non-necessity
2. Unless there is tortious action (i.e., misrepresentation or willful damages) on the part of the minor, the minor may recover his purchase price without liability for use, damage, etc.
3. Minor must return as much as he has left at time of disaffirmance, but is not bound to make restitution for loss, even if he is capable of doing so, unless it was for necessities (see above)
4. Olson v. Veum (per Lemke)
a. Minor’s right to disaffirm is not contingent upon the return of the property, as disaffirmance is permitted even where such return cannot be made
D. Mentally incapacitated / insane
1. Restatement #12