Facts:Sun Valley owned over one acre of a lot that wasundeveloped. Hoffman took Sun Valley to district court based off of things inthe agreement. The judged ruled that there was an oral understanding of thesale but they didn’t comply with statue of frauds and because of this theagreement was unenforceable. Issue:Is there an enforceable contract to sell theproperty of Sun Valley? Are the two documents, the letter and check, sufficientto satisfy the statutory requirements?1) Was there an oral agreement and isthere sufficient memorandum signed by the parties that evidences the agreement sothat the statute of frauds is satisfied? Holding:Yes and No.
Yes, they did come to a mutual agreementhowever, the agreement did not comply with the statute of frauds and theagreement is not enforceable. MajorityOpinion Reasoning: Justice Shepard a) Rule:1) A contract require that the partieshave a specific understanding 2) Idaho requires that both partiessign the documents while the rest of other jurisdictions require only one partyto sign the documents b) Application: 1) The parties had negotiated thepurchase price which was then approved by the executive committee. The agreedupon price was $90,000 which could be paid in cash or they could do a 30% downpayment on the land. Hoffman sent Sun Valley a check and an email which listedadditional terms. 2) The sale agreement was never signedby Sun Valley. 3) Hoffman says he exercised buyerrights because they had someone come survey the land.
4) ConcurringOpinion(s) Reasoning: Bakes, C.J., McFadden and Donaldson,JJ, concur DissentingOpinion(s) Reasoning: BistlineBistline stated that Idaho’s law may be outdated andpossibly need to be changed. When parties have as much documentation as thesetwo parties did and it still doesn’t meet the requirements OF Statute ofFrauds, then the laws can’t accommodate to the business transactions in theworld today. While the majority of other jurisdictions only require onesignature on documents, Idaho requires both parties to sign the documentation.Bistline thinks that Idaho needs to follow in the footsteps of others in a moreupdated and modern law.
The court needs to consider the possibility of this lawbeing outdated. Facts:The “Carolina Cougars” were a basketball club whosued a professional basketball player named William Cunningham. The Cougarswere suing him for a violation of contract due to the fact that he was doingservices at other clubs besides the Cougars.
Under the district court, they foundthat “If Cunningham had failed and refused to perform his contract, plaintiffshad unclean hands and had breached their contract with Cunningham.” Due tothis, the court denied this case. They later appealed the decision of thecourt. Issue:Was the contract for Cunningham assignable to thenew owners? Holding:Yes, Cunningham’s contract was assignable to thenew owners. This is based off that a personal service contract which requiresspecific skills cant be assigned without the other party rendering services. MajorityOpinion Reasoning: Circuit Judge Winter a) Rule: Under personal contracts they arenot assignable b) Application:Because Cunningham was not required to perform differentlybetween the two teams its not considered a breach of contract.
Due to that,Cunningham would win this case. ConcurringOpinion(s) Reasoning: None DissentingOpinion(s) Reasoning: None