Issue
The legal issue in this case is whether the proposed tenant (Newark & Co Real Estate Inc.) and the landlord of 2615 east 17 Street Realty LLC has violated the provisions under the Statute of Frauds by submitting counterproposals to the offers that they received from each other. For the record, both of the two parties submitted their respective counteroffers to the opposing party and it is presumed that no agreement has been made following the submission of each counterproposals.
Rule
A good example of a case wherein one party has been sentenced as a result of violating the Statute of Fraud would be McIntosh v. Murphy. The issue was basically the same; it revolved around whether the Statute of Frauds has been violated and can therefore be enforceable. According to the ruling “an oral promise which the promisor should reasonable expect to induce either action or forbearance on the part of the promise is enforceable when injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the contract” . In the end, it has been ruled that a breach of the Statute of Fraud has been made rendering any contracts made and signed void.
Application
Firstly, there were numerous similarities between the current case and that of McIntosh v. Murphy. They are both based on the practice of honoring contracts. In this case, however, it was not established whether a contract was signed by both parties following the changes they made on the agreement—the presumption on which is that there were no signed contracts as of date. If this is indeed the case, there cannot be any violation of the Statute of Fraud because the changes made can still be considered as a mere counteroffer.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the case of Newark & Co Real Estate Inc. v. the Landlord of 2615 East 17 Street Realty LLC can be different from most cases where the Statute of Fraud has been violated. Firstly, there was no contract signed first. Making changes to the existing proposal (as long as there is no signed contract yet) is a completely normal part of any negotiation process. This therefore would most likely not qualify as writing under the Statute of Frauds, provided that the existing presumptions are right.
Works Cited
Lawnix. "McIntosh v. Murphy Case Brief." (1970): http://www.lawnix.com/cases/mcintosh-murphy.html. Web.
