Please give a response in 1-2 paragraphs for case 16-5 below Does ule agitumul u
ID: 370879 • Letter: P
Question
Please give a response in 1-2 paragraphs for case 16-5 below Does ule agitumul under the Statute of Frauds? Explain, Ieas Estate, Inc. v. 2615 East 17 Street Realty, LLC, 80 A to the landlord. vmark&C; C, 80 A.D . Rea are ing wa (See page 283.) 16-5. BUSINESS CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: The Parol Evidence Rule. the the Rimma Vaks and her husband, Steven Manano executed a written contract with Denise Ryan and Ryan Auction Co. to auction their furnishings. The six-page contract provided a detailed summary of the parties' agreement. It addressed the items to be auctioned are 10 ret V. 3d how reserve prices wo uld be determined, and the amount of te, Ryan's commission. When a dispute arose between the parte e Vaks and Mangano sued Ryan for breach of contract, vd Rut and ntract. Vaks ed Maigano asserted that, before they executed the contract
Explanation / Answer
In this case there is a clear contract with detailed summary of both parties’ agreement and address all the important areas including the items to be auctioned, determination of reserve prices, and the amount of Ryan’s commission. When the contract is clear in writing, as per the plain meaning rule the court will enforce the contract as per the obvious terms mentioned in the contract and the meanings are interpreted from the written agreement alone. The oral representations form the extrinsic evidence and the court do not consider extrinsic evidences when there is a clear and unambiguous written contract. Hence Vaks and Mangano cannot recover for oral breaches and can recover only if Ryan did any breaches to the written contract.