On may 1, study and burrow, two college professors, entered into and oral contract under which study agreed to sell his computer to burrow for $1,300, with delivery and payment on may 15. on may 2, study sent burrow a signed letter confirming all the terms of their oral contract. burrow received study’s letter on may 3 but never responded. on may 15, study tendered delivery of the computer to burrow, but burrow refused to accept or pay for it, stating that he had changed his mind and did not need study’s computer. study sues burrow for breach of contract. burrow pleads the statute of frauds as a defense.(a) judgment for whom? explain.(b) if study and burrow were merchants who sold computers, judgment for whom? explain.

Check the following explanation

Explanation:

a) Usually a contract has the following elements:

Offer .

Acceptance .

Consideration .

Intention to create a legal relationship .

In the given case, the intention to create a legal relationship is missing. Though Study had sent a written legal contract to Burrow to affirm the contract, Burrow did not show any interest regarding the same. Hence Burrow can’t be sued for breach of contracts. Moreover the confirmation letter sent by Study does not qualify under the Merchant Memo Rule as the involved parties are not merchants. Burrow can use the terms of UCC for his favour. The UCC states that any contract with value more than $500 must be in writing. As the involved amount in this case is $1300, hence this case does not qualify as a contract under UCC.

b) If Study and Burrow were merchants, then the Merchant Memo Rule gets applicable. Then in that case, if 2 merchants enter into an oral contract, which is worth $500 or more and one of the merchant sends a written confirmation for the same, then a contract will be considered enforceable. In such a case, Burrow will be held liable for breach of contract and can be sued by Study.

what

explanation:

answer; foreign exchange transaction;