Answer: The Contract is valid.
Explanation:
Under the UCC’s Statute of Frauds, transactions above $500 for goods cannot be made orally alone and have to be written in writing as well. This is the law that Rosenfield relied on.
However, Fallsview can argue that the Passover Retreat is not a Good, but rather a Service in which case it does not fall under the Statute.
The main bone of contention thereby becomes, if indeed it is a service or a good.
If it is a Hybrid of both, then the Court needs to decide if the services outweigh the goods involved.
From the text we see that the following were included in the package, food, entertainment, and lectures on religious subjects.
Food is the only good there and is outweighed by Entertainment and lectures on religious subjects.
As such, the contract is valid as it is for more service than good.
Answer:
The contract is valid
Explanation:
The uniform commercial code provides guidelines for transactions that involves sales of goods between different parties.
Under its statues of fraud, there is a requirement for the agreement to be in writing if sales of goods priced above $500 and payments of over $1,000.
However there are 3 exceptions to this rule: admission, performance, and promisory estoppel.
Under admission if the defaulting party admits that there was an oral agreement between them, then the contract is enforceable.
In this scenario where there is a payment of $24,050 and Rosenfeld agrees there is an oral contract, the contract with Fallsview is enforceable against him
