Pepsi Revist

.docx

School

Central Piedmont Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

115

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by DeanAlpaca3580

1. According to the course readings, the Statute of Frauds requires that a contract reasonably identify the subject of the contract, adequately state that a contract exists, and list the terms of the contract reasonably. In the case of a UCC contract, a contract for the sale of goods greater than or equal to $500.00 requires a contract to be in writing. For a contract to be valid under the Statute of Frauds, the terms must be fulfilled by both parties. (Chapter 9: Statute of Frauds, n.d.) 2. The Statute of Frauds can apply to contracts in either written or oral form as long as the contract subject and terms can be reasonably identified. The type of contracts that the Statute of Frauds can be applied to are identified by common law requirements or requirements of the UCC. Common law requirements include the promise to pay the debt of another, agreements of an executor or administrator of a deceased person's estate, marital contracts when some consideration is exchanged for the agreement of marriage, real estate interests and contracts, and contracts not able to be completed within one year. The UCC requires a contract to be in writing when the sale of some good exceeds $500.00, the sale of securities, or any other sale exceeding $5000. According to the chapter 9 reading, an oral contract can be binding and not subject to the Statute of Frauds when the promisor is acting to secure their own “economic advantage” (Chapter 9: Statute of Frauds, n.d.) . 3. I have identified three ways that Pepsi can choose to argue the enforcement of this contract. Pepsi can utilize the Statute of Frauds to avoid John Leonard’s attempt at a prize in several ways. Pepsi can claim that due to the inherent value of the jet being over $5000, they are required to have a written contract between Pepsi and the prize winner to cover terms, identity, and subject of all interested parties and specifically naming the jet as a prize. By avoiding a written contract Pepsi has introduced enough ambiguity into the situation to prevent interpretation of the contract in one way or the other. This less-than-clear portrayal makes it hard for both sides to argue their point either for or against. (Chapter 9: Statute of Frauds, n.d.) Pepsi can also argue that since there was no intent and a lack of detail regarding the jet as a prize, there is no contract to enforce. The lack of explicitness (Pepsi never officially named the jet as a prize) and mutuality (Pepsi never intended the jet to be a prize) marks the “contract” as unenforceable and not subject to the Statute of Frauds. (Chapter 4: Introduction to Contracts, n.d.) The third way that Pepsi can argue this situation would be that since no material change of position has been made (they have not awarded the jet), they are choosing to rescind the sweepstakes and thus are exempt from the Statute of Frauds in canceling any apparent contract with the winner of this prize. By arguing that there never was the intent of a contract, Pepsi cannot be held to honor it. References
Chapter 4: Introduction to Contracts . (n.d.). Retrieved from Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ap1MzSDLnsuqrqF3pdbqQqLuOrW3YWhK3OcI PhTixIU/edit#heading=h.x1fsx7h48nwp Chapter 9: Statute of Frauds . (n.d.). Retrieved from Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DoDlGq-ZNrcjWoaurkiskHaT0QaAe2- wQxv0to1gSDY/edit#heading=h.vr7h9tri74ft
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help