Parties who are both in good health should freely accept the terms of the agreement, i.e. without any undue influence, coercion, coercion or misrepresentation of the facts. Both the nephew and aunt agree with the terms of the contract, without putting pressure on each other and with the intention of fulfilling their obligations. The Fraud Act is a common law rule codified in most states, which requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. The contracts concerned include: (1) Contracts for the response to the debt of others (Ark. Code Ann. 4-59-101) ;(2) Agreements to be concluded taking into account marriage (Ark. Code Ann. 4-59-101) ;(3) agreements that will not be complied with within one year from the date of the agreement (Ark. Code Ann. 4-59-101) ;(4) Agreements for the Sale, Lease or Transfer of Land (Ark. Code Ann.
4-59-101-102) ;(5) Contracts for the sale of goods over $500.00 (Ark). Code Ann. 4-2-201; and (6) Contracts for the construction of a will or currency entered into after June 17, 1981 (Ark. Code Ann. 28-24-101). Fraud law has a long history dating back to the United States as a country. Like much of our current legislation, we inherited the Fraud Act from England. Arkansas has taken over and codified the rule in three separate statutes.
The result of the rule is that, in order to be enforceable, some contracts must be in writing. Although there are exceptions, it is in most cases a hard and quick rule that the above list of agreements must be in writing and signed by the “party to be sued”, i.e. the party against whom you want to enforce the contract. You take care of the status of fraud so you don`t fall into the trap of relying on a verbal promise that might not be enforceable. Kiddie involved such a situation. Kiddie was appealing a decision of the United States District Court, which was tried in the Harrison Division of the Western District of Arkansas. In the action brought in the action, the applicant claimed that the defendants had infringed a verbal agreement allegedly concluded between the applicant and three defendants which refers to the means of distributing the property of the applicant`s grandfather after his death. The District Court held that the alleged agreement, even though it was concluded, was not enforceable because it was not in writing and was therefore contrary to the Fraud Act, as it did to Ark. Code Ann.
28-24-101 (with respect to currency development agreements). A little planning could have established the ordinance on his estate and avoided the appeal altogether. The grandfather could have avoided the dispute between the grandchildren if he had left a valid estate plan that could have contained a last will and a will and a revocable or irrevocable trust. It would have enabled all the parties concerned to save a significant amount of legal fees and expenses. The party wishing to apply the agreement has the difficult task of proving the terms of the agreement and the existence of an oral agreement. An oral agreement is a contract, even if it is not in writing. If the contract is valid, it is a binding agreement between two parties. While some oral contracts are considered enforceable, they are problematic and complicated. For an oral agreement to be binding, the elements of a contract in force must be present. To illustrate how the elements of a contract create binding terms in an oral agreement, we use the example of a man who borrows $200 from his aunt to replace a flat tire.
. . .