Question

Tom was interested in buying a car from Pete, a private seller well-known for reselling cars that belonged to famous celebrities. Tom bought a car, and agreed to make monthly payments to Pete over the course of 5 years. Additionally, Tom’s friend, Frank, promised orally that if Tom could not make a monthly payment in time, Frank would make it for him. In the eleventh month after the purchase date, Tom was not able to pay his monthly payment. So, Pete sought the payment from Frank. However, Frank responded that he was not obligated to pay Pete anything. Consequently, Pete took Frank to court, arguing that Frank had failed to pay the monthly payment that he was obligated to pursuant to the oral agreement they had made. The court, however, ruled in Frank’s favor, holding that because the secondary obligation was not in writing, the alleged contract was not enforceable. But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that would alter the outcome of the court’s decision.

CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY:

A. The main reason for Frank’s incurring the secondary obligation was so that Frank could carpool with Tom to work as Frank and Tom were co-workers. Prior to Frank’s getting a car, Frank had relied on public transportation—an option substantially more expensive than having Frank take him in Frank’s new car.

B. Frank had signed in writing that he would pay any monthly payment that Tom missed at the same time that Tom contracted with Pete.

C. The car that Tom bought was one that had been customized by Pete pursuant to Tom’s requests.

D. Frank admitted in court that he had orally agreed to make any monthly payments that Tom could not pay in time.

Answer 1

Solution: Option A, B and D

Explanation: In the current scenario, the Frank’s obligation was oral thus was not enforceable; however in case the Frank Frank’s had been signed in writing or had admitted in court that he orally agreed to make the monthly payments if Tom makes a default, then there were high chances that the court’s decision might had been different. Furthermore if there was any motive of Frank such as carpool with Tom to work which is more economical mode for Frank, the court may viewed it and might altered the case outcome.