Business Law
Week 2 Assignment

14.2 Real Property
In the case of Briggs v. Sackett, the Sacketts win the case. The parties entered into an oral collateral contract for Briggs to sell his house to the Sacketts under the conditions that the Sacketts pay the three months’ arrearages on the loan and agree to make future payments on the mortgage. After fifteen years Briggs filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation of the Statute of Frauds. Although the Statute of Frauds requires collateral contracts to be in writing, there is an exception that overrides this requirement. “The main purpose exception is an exception to the Statute of Frauds which states that if the main purpose of a transaction and an oral collateral contract is to provide pecuniary benefit to the guarantor, the collateral contract does not have to be in writing to be enforced.”(Cheeseman 222) The Sacketts indeed provided a pecuniary benefit to the Briggs by helping them catch up on past due payments and keeping the payments current for fifteen years. The main purpose exception overrides the Statute of Frauds and therefore the Sacketts win.

16.10 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
The case between PG & E v. Bear Stearns is an example of “a tort that arises when a third party induces a contracting party to breach the contract with another party.” (Cheeseman 257) PG & E can sue Bear Stearns based on the basis of the intentional interference with contractual relations tort. PG & E entered into a contract with Agency and Bear Stearns induced Agency to breach the contract with PG & E. PG & E and Bear Stearns have approximately 15 – 20 years left before there is a complete performance of the contract. Bear Stearns would be responsible for the material breach and the compensatory damages, which compensates the nonbreaching party for the loss of the