TTTBE #31: SPARKLER BOMBS! Edition
Added 2017-07-10 00:19:35 +0000 UTCThis question asked about the statute of frauds, which (broadly speaking) is the rule that requires that certain contracts be reduced to writing. Thomas hadn't heard of the term, but correctly reasoned his way to an understanding of the question from context clues.
Moreover, Thomas actually got the correct answer in this case, which was "C," that there is an exception to the statute of frauds for goods that are specially made for a buyer. See UCC § 2-201(3)(c).
Nobody guessed "B," which implied that no oral contracts are enforceable. That's good; if you listen to the show, you would know that lots of oral contracts are enforced all the time.
A few people picked "A," which says that the statute of frauds must be enforced for goods over $500. That's partially correct; the statute of frauds is triggered when you have a sale of goods over $500, but you still check to see if one of the exceptions apply.
A lot of people picked "D," Thomas's second chance, which was an attractive distractor. The "benefit of the bargain rule" is a measure of damages in breach of contract cases, but has nothing to do with the statute of frauds in particular.
Thomas is now on an amazing two-question winning streak and is 15-for-31 (48.4%), and is just one correct question away from hitting that magical .500 mark.
Patron Emily Burke reminded me that I neglected to link sparkler bomb resources in the Fourth of July show notes, so here you go. Enjoy -- and remember, don't take incendiary device advice from a podcast!
Comments
In Denmark consumers have a lot of protections when entering contracts. Companies do not. A classic fraud technique is to send a bill for something to a thousand small companies. Perhaps 10 of them will pay the bill, which is for some subscription. Now the fraudster can keep on selling "subscriptions" to the company,, and because the company payed, the fraudster can claim that there is indeed a contract. Seen in that light a fraud limit of $500 makes sense. If a company fucks up and falls for a fraudster this sets an upper limit on what they can be liable for when defrauded.
Søren Kongstad
2017-07-11 09:27:16 +0000 UTCNot sure if this is where to submit Listener questions. Would love to see a discussion on the law of Treason given the large number of times Trump is accused of it. I googled it and was surprised there had been several convictions (though the last goes back to the 1950s).
What do we want, time travel. When do we want it. That's Irrelevant!
2017-07-10 15:44:05 +0000 UTC
