Facts: Sun Valley owned over one acre of a lot that was undeveloped. Hoffman took Sun Valley to district court based off of things in the agreement. The judged ruled that there was an oral understanding of the sale but they didn’t comply with statue of frauds and because of this the agreement was unenforceable.
Issue: Is there an enforceable contract to sell the property of Sun Valley? Are the two documents, the letter and check, sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements?
1) Was there an oral agreement and is there sufficient memorandum signed by the parties that evidences the agreement so that the statute of frauds is satisfied?
Holding: Yes and No. Yes, they did come to a mutual agreement however, the agreement did not comply with the statute of frauds and the agreement is not enforceable.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: Justice Shepard
1) In order for a contract to be valid, all parties must understand the terms within
2) In Idaho, all parties must sign required documents within a contract but all other jurisdictions require only one signature.
1) Parties agreed to a set purchase price which was then approved by the executive committee. The purchase could be completed with cash or installment payments
2) The sale agreement was never signed by Sun Valley.
3) Hoffman says he exercised buyer rights because they had someone come survey the land.
Concurring Opinion(s) Reasoning: Bakes, C.J., McFadden and Donaldson, JJ, concur
Dissenting Opinion(s) Reasoning: Bistline
Bistline stated that Idaho’s law may be outdated and possibly need to be changed. When parties have as much documentation as these two parties did and it still doesn’t meet the requirements OF Statute of Frauds, then the laws can’t accommodate to the business transactions in the world today. While the majority of other jurisdictions only require one signature on documents, Idaho requires both parties to sign the documentation. Bistline thinks that Idaho needs to follow in the footsteps of others in a more updated and modern law. The court needs to consider the possibility of this law being outdated.
Facts: The “Carolina Cougars” were a basketball club who sued a professional basketball player named William Cunningham. The Cougars were suing him for a violation of contract due to the fact that he was doing services at other clubs besides the Cougars. Under the district court, they found that “If Cunningham had failed and refused to perform his contract, plaintiffs had unclean hands and had breached their contract with Cunningham.” Due to this, the court denied this case. They later appealed the decision of the court.
Issue: Was the contract for Cunningham assignable to the new owners?
Holding: Yes, Cunningham’s contract was assignable to the new owners. This is based off that a personal service contract which requires specific skills cant be assigned without the other party rendering services.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: Circuit Judge Winter
a) Rule: Under personal contracts they are not assignable
b) Application: Because Cunningham was not required to perform differently between the two teams its not considered a breach of contract. Due to that, Cunningham would win this case.
Concurring Opinion(s) Reasoning: None
Dissenting Opinion(s) Reasoning: None