New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

Is Rose likely to succeed in a lawsuit against Octavia for breach of contract?

1. Yes, because the contract did not need to be in writing

2. Yes, because Rose offered a better deal

3. No, because Octavia was not unjustly enriched since she paid more for her books

4. No, because of the statute of frauds

The correct answer is: Yes, because the contract did not need to be in writing

In determining whether Rose is likely to succeed in a lawsuit against Octavia for breach of contract, the correct interpretation hinges on the requirement for a contract to be in writing, as outlined in the statute of frauds. Contracts that can typically be enforced without being in writing include agreements that can be performed within one year, contracts for the sale of goods under a certain amount, and other exceptions. If the contract between Rose and Octavia is not one of those that is required to be in writing under the statute of frauds, then the statement that the contract did not need to be in writing supports the case for Rose's likelihood of success. Consequently, the absence of a written contract does not automatically negate the enforceability of the agreement if the specific terms meet the criteria for enforceability based on the nature of the agreement. The assertion that Rose offered a better deal does not necessarily provide a basis for a breach of contract claim unless it relates specifically to the terms of an existing agreement that was breached. The idea that Octavia was not unjustly enriched because she paid more for her books may not be directly relevant to the question of whether a breach occurred; unjust enrichment is more about the benefits received without providing compensation, which is a distinct legal concept often pertinent