Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Statute Of Frauds
6 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Statute Of FraudsQuestion 1 of 6

In March, Seller orally agrees to sell Buyer a parcel of land for $200,000. Buyer immediately takes possession, builds a house on the land, and pays the full purchase price. Seller then refuses to convey, and Buyer sues for damages for breach of contract.

Which statement best describes Buyer's rights under the Statute of Frauds?

Buyer may recover damages because taking possession, improving the land, and paying the price removes the contract from the Statute of Frauds.
Buyer is not entitled to damages but may obtain specific performance because his acts of possession and improvement are unequivocally referable to the oral contract.
Buyer is entitled to no relief because the Statute of Frauds makes the oral contract void.
Buyer is entitled to damages only if Seller accepted the full purchase price as an executed contract.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Statute Of Frauds

Practice Statute Of Frauds in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Statute Of Frauds, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

In March, Seller orally agrees to sell Buyer a parcel of land for $200,000. Buyer immediately takes possession, builds a house on the land, and pays the full purchase price. Seller then refuses to convey, and Buyer sues for damages for breach of contract.

Which statement best describes Buyer's rights under the Statute of Frauds?

  1. Buyer may recover damages because taking possession, improving the land, and paying the price removes the contract from the Statute of Frauds.
  2. Buyer is not entitled to damages but may obtain specific performance because his acts of possession and improvement are unequivocally referable to the oral contract. (correct answer)
  3. Buyer is entitled to no relief because the Statute of Frauds makes the oral contract void.
  4. Buyer is entitled to damages only if Seller accepted the full purchase price as an executed contract.
Explanation: Oral contracts for the sale of land are within the Statute of Frauds, but the equitable part-performance doctrine permits specific performance when the buyer's acts are unequivocally referable to the contract, such as taking possession and making improvements. Part performance does not, however, make the contract enforceable at law for damages. A is wrong because the remedy is equitable; C is wrong because the Statute of Frauds makes the contract unenforceable, not void; D is wrong because damages remain unavailable even if the price was accepted.

Question 2

A company orally promises a consultant a $100,000 bonus if, within the next two years, the consultant obtains a binding purchase order from a particular overseas buyer. The consultant immediately begins work and obtains the purchase order nine months later. The company refuses to pay, asserting the Statute of Frauds.

Is the company's oral promise enforceable?

  1. No, because the agreement by its terms could extend for two years, making it incapable of performance within one year.
  2. No, because the bonus amount exceeds $500 and the agreement was not in writing.
  3. Yes, because the consultant's performance could have been completed within one year and in fact was completed within one year. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the consultant's commencement of work constituted part performance taking the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds.
Explanation: Under the one-year provision, a contract is within the Statute of Frauds only if it cannot by its terms be performed within one year from the making. Because the consultant could have earned the bonus by obtaining a purchase order within the first year, and did so, the agreement was performable within one year. Choice A incorrectly focuses on the possible two-year outer limit; B wrongly applies the UCC $500 threshold to a services contract; D misapplies the part-performance doctrine, which is not used to satisfy the one-year provision.

Question 3

A homeowner orally hires a contractor to replace the roof on her house. They agree on a $28,000 price, of which $19,000 is for labor and $9,000 is for shingles and other materials. The contractor completes the work, and the homeowner refuses to pay.

Is the oral contract enforceable?

  1. No, because the contract included goods worth more than $500.
  2. No, because the contract price exceeds $500 and was not in writing.
  3. Yes, because the predominant purpose of the contract is services, and no other Statute of Frauds category applies. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the homeowner's acceptance of the completed roof constituted partial payment.
Explanation: For mixed goods and services contracts, courts apply the predominant-purpose test. Here the contract was predominantly for roofing services, with materials incidental, so the UCC Statute of Frauds does not apply; no common-law Statute of Frauds category is triggered. A and B incorrectly treat the presence or price of goods as controlling. D's acceptance-as-partial-payment theory is not a recognized basis and does not address the correct analysis.

Question 4

After a decedent's death, the administrator of the estate orally tells a funeral home that has billed the estate: 'If the estate does not pay, I will pay the bill myself.' The estate has insufficient assets and does not pay, and the funeral home sues the administrator personally.

Is the administrator's oral promise enforceable?

  1. Yes, because the administrator is the person responsible for paying the estate's debts.
  2. Yes, because the funeral home's prior performance furnished consideration for the promise.
  3. No, because the promise was a collateral promise to answer for the estate's debt and was not in writing. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the estate's debt is not yet due until the estate is administered.
Explanation: The Statute of Frauds makes unenforceable a promise by an executor or administrator to answer personally for a debt of the estate. The administrator's promise was collateral to the estate's debt and was made personally, and no exception applies. A confuses estate liability with personal liability; B is wrong because past consideration does not create an enforceable promise and, in any event, the Statute of Frauds is not satisfied; D misstates the debt's due date.

Question 5

A developer is building a shopping center. A contractor stops work because its supplier has not been paid for materials and refuses to make further deliveries. The developer, who will lose substantial future leases if the opening is delayed, orally tells the supplier: 'If you deliver the materials to the contractor, I will pay the contractor's $150,000 debt to you if the contractor does not.' The supplier delivers, the contractor does not pay, and the supplier demands payment from the developer.

Is the developer's oral promise enforceable?

  1. No, because it is a collateral promise to pay the debt of another and is not in writing.
  2. Yes, because the supplier's continued deliveries furnished new consideration to the developer.
  3. No, because the developer's promise was made to the supplier rather than to the contractor.
  4. Yes, because the developer's primary purpose was to serve its own economic interest, taking the promise out of the Statute of Frauds. (correct answer)
Explanation: The suretyship provision applies to a promise to answer for the debt of another made to the creditor, but it does not apply when the promisor's main purpose is to protect its own economic interest. The developer's promise was designed to avoid delayed opening and lost leases, so it is enforceable despite the lack of a writing. A ignores the leading-object exception; B incorrectly treats consideration as satisfying the Statute of Frauds; C misstates the rule because promises made to the creditor are the ones normally within the suretyship provision.

Question 6

Seller, a wholesale distributor, and Buyer, a retail chain, are both merchants. They orally agree that Seller will sell Buyer 500 tablet computers at $600 each. That day Seller sends Buyer a signed e-mail stating: 'This confirms our oral agreement for 500 tablets at $600 each.' Buyer reads the e-mail but does not reply. Buyer later refuses to accept the tablets, and Seller sues.

Under the UCC Statute of Frauds, is the agreement enforceable against Buyer?

  1. No, because the contract was for goods worth more than $500 and no writing was signed by Buyer.
  2. No, because an e-mail is not a signed writing sufficient against Seller.
  3. Yes, because Buyer's failure to object to a merchant's written confirmation within ten days satisfies the Statute of Frauds as against Buyer. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because Seller's sending the confirmation completed the parties' oral agreement.
Explanation: UCC 2-201(2) provides that between merchants, a written confirmation sufficient against the sender and received by a merchant with reason to know its contents satisfies the Statute of Frauds against the recipient unless written objection is made within ten days. Buyer read Seller's signed confirmation and did not object, so the contract is enforceable against Buyer. A ignores the merchant-confirmation exception; B is wrong because a signed e-mail can be a sufficient writing; D is wrong because the confirmation does not operate as acceptance or completion of the contract.