space of one year from the time they are made. The vital question is not was the contract performed within the prescribed time, but was it capable of being performed within a year from the date of making. If A contracts with B to-day to work for him one year, beginning the first of next month, this is clearly within the statute. A contracts with B to work two months for him, but no time is mentioned as to the date of beginning. The agreement is without the statute and need not be in writing-it is capable of being performed within one year.

6. Sale of Goods. Many questions rise under this section that make the settling of the question difficult. There are probably more decisions under this section that cannot be reconciled than under any statute ever enacted. One reason for this lack of uniformity is that generally a side element causes the trouble, such as an element of labor in a contract for the sale of certain chattels. The decisions divide on whether it is a sale of goods. or a contract for labor.

(a) Effect of Non-Compliance. A few states have excluded altogether this section of the Statute of Frauds relating to the sales of personal property. Unlike the first section, this enacts that the contract shall not be good, therefore a failure to reduce the agreement to writing would make the agreement void and not merely unenforceable.

A consideration is essential to every contract. It is the value attached to the thing to be done or omitted.

It may consist of “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other." The benefit may pass to a third party as well as to the one making the promise.

Inadequacy in itself is no defense.

A naked promise unsupported by a consideration is unenforceable.

A transfer of property in fraud of creditors is voidable as to them and may be set aside in their behalf. As between the parties to the transfer it is binding.

A performance that is impossible in itself is unenforceable.

An agreement that has for its consideration merely a moral consideration is unenforceable at law.

A past consideration is not sufficient to support a promise unless such past consideration was done or suffered at the request of the one making the promise.

Part payment of a debt due in cancellation of the whole debt is no defense for the balance of the debt.

A larger debt may be canceled by the payment of a smaller sum and the addition of something different.

Mutual promises supply the consideration to support each other.

The Statute of Frauds directs that the evidence of certain contracts must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.

Define consideration.

51. QUESTIONS

What effect does inadequacy of consideration have on a contract? Why?

Can a promise not supported by a consideration be enforced?

When will inadequacy of consideration be a ground for setting aside a contract?

A contracts to do a thing which is impossible of performance. Is he liable under the contract? A contracts to do a thing that is impossible for him to perform, but possible for someone else. Is he liable?

Is a contract enforceable that is based purely on a moral consideration? Why?

Is a past consideration sufficient to support a contract. Discuss fully. When will the part payment of a debt discharge the whole debt? And when not?

A owes B $500. With B's consent he pays him $200 and a horse in satisfaction of the debt. Does this discharge the debt?

What is the purpose of the Statute of Frauds?

What are formal contracts? Simple contracts?

Enumerate the main provisions of the Statute of Frauds and discuss each one.

1. In V v. F, 3 Ill. 263, it is held that the body of an instrument itself that is sealed is not sufficient. It must in fact be signed and sealed. 2. In J v. J, Craig & Ph., 138, a contract under seal was executed, wherein one agreed to transfer certain realty to the other, but no consideration was recited. Held that a court of equity would not decree specific performance.

3. In E v. K, K promises E that if he will act as surety for A, he (K) will reimburse him. This is a primary promise and need not be in writing.

4. In N v. W, 7 Kans. 373, W orally promises to marry N in three years. Held that this promise is not binding, as the statute directs a written promise. (This promise is not affected by the law relating to the ordinary agreements to marry.)

5. In R v. H, H, an administratrix, gave a written promise to answer damages out of her own estate. Held not enforceable for want of a consideration.

6. In H v. H, 12 Gray, Mass. 341, a receipt in full was given for part payment of the balance. The receipt in full was held to be no bar to suit for the balance of the debt.

7. In M v. W, 3 Pick., Mass. 207, an adult was taken sick among strangers, who cared for him until his death. Subsequent to his death his father promised to reimburse. Held that this promise was not obligatory, as the consideration was past.

8. In W v. E, the parties enter into an agreement to defraud the creditors of one of the parties. Later W sued E on this agreement, which is a bond. Held not enforceable, as the illegal nature of the agreement may be shown and thus defeat a recovery.

9. In N v. McC, 5 Minn. 382, the parties entered into a contract which did not comply with the Statute of Frauds. The contract was, however, carried out. Held that N could not subsequently recover the money paid on this agreement.

10. In H v. V, 10 A. & E., R. I. 309, B promised H that if he would return a certain guaranty given to him by A, that he (B) would pay certain bills. Guaranty was returned and was found to be unenforceable. Nevertheless, its return was held to be a sufficient consideration for B's promise.

11. In W. v. S, one party sued another on a cause of action known to be without foundation. A promise was given to pay if suit was discontinued. Held that this was unenforceable for want of consideration.

12. In B v. B, the principle is established that where the parties enter into a contract upon insufficient consideration, as where a claim of $100 now due is settled by giving less than $100 and a receipt in full is given by one of the parties, this does not prevent subsequent action to recover the balance.

53. Introduction. The fourth element in a contract contemplates that both parties have complete knowledge of the facts and that they know they are forming a legal relationship. It may be that where the words show consent the law may look beyond to determine whether the apparent consent is in fact consent as required by the law. There must be a "meeting of minds" to satisfy the law.

1. Definition. Agreement is the formation of a distinct common intention to do or not to do a particular thing. This agreement may be either express or implied. It is express where the terms are fully understood and consented to by both parties; implied where from the acts or relationship of the parties the law presumes a contract has been made and supplies the lacking element in order to properly adjust and protect their rights and liabilities. The law, however, does not establish a contract where the partial agreement relates wholly to an executory agreement. A benefit or detriment must have been sustained.

The agreement may be resolved into two elements; viz., offer and acceptance. They frequently take the form of question and answer; as, "Will you give me $100 for this horse?" "I will." This is an express agreement.

2. Offer. The offer is the first step toward making a contract, and is simply a proposition or a question; as, "I wish to buy," "I wish to sell," or "Will you buy?" Since it affects but one party, it may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by the other party.

3. Acceptance. Acceptance is the step taken by the second party to the contract relation whereby the offer of the first party is assented to. Unlike a proposition, it cannot be withdrawn. It completes the contract, and affects the legal relations of both parties. There must be a communication of the mutual intentions of the parties in order that an agreement may result. A secret, unexpressed intention to accept cannot in any way affect the relations of either party.

Illustration. "I will sell you this horse for $100," is a proposition. The following would be an acceptance: "I will pay you $100 for that horse." "All right, I will take the horse at that price," or "It is a bargain." The acceptance might also be made by a nod of the head or a sign. These would not be acceptances: "I will pay you $100 for the horse to-morrow"; "I will pay you $95"; or even "I will pay you $105 for the horse"; or "I will take the horse at the sum named, but you must take your pay in goods from my store." These replies constitute counterpropositions. After such a proposition has been made, the parties cannot then accept the first proposition. A counter-proposition is a refusal of a proposition and the substitution of a new one.