Question

21.    BUS 320 Survivor Ms. Elaine Taylor owned a farm. Disgusted with all the foul by-products of farming, Elaine and U.C. Santa Clara graduate, Frank Lee Gullible, negotiated for the sale of Elaine’s 100-acre Sutter County, California farm. On July 3, 2020, the day after excelling on her second BUS 320 midterm, Elaine orally agreed with Mr. Gullible on a price of $100,000, one-half in cash payable at closing and the remainder 90 days later. Two days later on July 4th, Elaine sells the farm to someone twice as oblivious as Mr. Gullible, my really Dumb Cousin, for $200,000. On July 8th, Mr. Gullible sends Elaine a letter in which all the terms are included and is signed by Mr. Gullible. Elaine never responds. When the closing date arrives, Elaine tells Mr. Gullible that she sold the property to my Dumb Cousin. Frank Lee Gullible sues. A court would likely find that:

a. This contract is enforceable because Frank Lee Gullible had partly performed the contract by

sending the letter to the Seller, Elaine.

b. Elaine is a real slick operator and Mr. Gullible should have taken BUS 320 at SFSU because this

contract is unenforceable, there is no writing signed by Elaine and my really Dumb Cousin now owns a farm.

c. This contract is unenforceable because the mirror image rule applies.

d. The contract is enforceable under the res ipsa loquitor doctrine.

ANSWER: __________

Answer 1

(b.) Elaine is a real slick operator and Mr. Gullible should have taken BUS 320 at SFSU because this contract is unenforceable, there is no writing signed by Elaine and my really Dumb Cousin now owns a farm. (Answer)

Reasons:

Under Section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1989 contract for the sale of land should comply with the following rules:

• The contract itself must be in writing. Oral contracts are invalid (which was present in this case).
• The contract must be signed by both the parties either as one document or as identical documents each signed by one party which are then exchanged. Even letter offerings to sell land and a confirmatory response will generally not be enough. Indeed, in this case there was not even response from Ms. Taylor for the letter offering from Mr. Gullible. Hence, the contract is unenforceable.

Option (a) is not the answer as it is already proved above that partly performed contract are not enforceable.

Option (c) is not the answer as mirror image rule does not come in play here.

Option (d) is not the answer because ‘res ipsa loquitor’ does not apply here as Mr. Gullible sent the letter on a later date (8^th July, 2020) after the farm was sold i.e. on 4^th July, 2020. If Mr. Gullible would have sent the letter offering to Ms. Taylor between the two days span of 3^rd and 4^th July, 2020, then ‘res ipsa loquitor’ could have been applied to prove Ms. Taylor’s negligence.