Question

1. Kevin and Natalie are getting married. Kevin has proposed to Natalie and Natalie has accepted. Natalie is worried about getting her education and how she will pay for it once they marry. Kevin orally promises Natalie that he will pay for her schooling if Natalie will marry Kevin. Natalie agrees. However, they do not sign a prenumptial agreement. The following is true: a) Kevin and Natalie have an implied agreement holding Kevin to paying for Natalie’s schooling. b) This agreement is an express agreement and is enforceable as an oral contract. c) This agreement is an express agreement but must be in writing to be enforceable by the Court. d) This is not an agreement because it relates to marriage and a prenumptial agreement should have been signed.

Answer 1

Answer) d) This is not an agreement because it relates to marriage and a prenumptial agreement should have been signed.

Reason) The given case is not in line with the 'Statue of Frauds.' Statute of Frauds is a common law which has been incorporated in the US legal system. It states that their are certain agreements which should be made in written to bind the parties to the promise, legally. Promises made in marriage consideration have to be written. Here, Kevin's promise is not enforceable by law because it is against the Statute of Frauds.The payment for Natalie's education is based on the consideration that Natalie will marry Kevin. However, this condition should have been made into a contract in order for it to be enforceable by law.

Options (a) and (b) are not correct because the case is of a promise made orally. There are no explicit terms and conditions. Option (c) is not correct because the promise made is not explicit contract.