In the case of Briggs v Sacket, Sacket would win in court because the exception to the Statue of Frauds is part performance. The Briggs entered into an oral agreement with the Sacketts to sell them the home if they paid the arrearage and continued to make monthly payment. The Sacketts, now being considered equitable owners, performed their part of the oral agreement and therefore the Statue of Fraud would not be a valid defense in this case. The courts ruled in Favor of Sackett to avoid injustice. (Briggs v. Sackett, 1980)

In the Case of PG&E v. Bear Stearns and Company, PG&E would win the case. This case is a perfect example of a tort with intentional interference with contractual relationships. PG&E had a valid contract, Bear gained knowledge of the contract in1990 and told Agency that they would help them terminate their contract with PG&E. The court found that Bear did not have cause of action to bring forward the lawsuit against PF&E and there wasn’t any probable cause on behalf of PG&E that made the contract more expensive or caused any burden to Bears.
The court ruled in favor of PG&E alleging that the defendant did not have probable cause. (Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Bear Stearns & Company, 1990)

In the case of f Gulash v Stylarama, the judge would rule in favor of Stylarama. At the time they signed the contract there was not an indication as to whether the contract was for good or for service. Because the breakdown of the cost of the contract was not provided a determination could not be made to substantiate Gulash accusation of breach of implied warranty. This contracts looks to be a construction contract which would not be governed by Article 2 of the UCC. The court ruled in favor of Stylarama because Gulash had the burden of proof to establish the existence of a warranty under the UCC, and he failed to do so. (Gulash v. Stylarama, 1975)