Written contracts provide certain advantages that oral contracts lack. disputes about the specifics of the terms in an oral contract are easier to settle when the terms are solidified in writing. the moment of writing also allows both parties to reconsider their terms and ensure that they are advocating what they desire in the contract. in general, written contracts smooth the conduct of business transactions. some contracts thus require a writing.

read the hypothetical case below, and answer the questions that follow, providing a full explanation of your answers..

suppose the local honda dealership is offering a special lease deal on the 2010 honda accord lx coupe. with a 36-month lease, the monthly price is $219, not including tax. the lease also requires a down payment of approximately $2,380, plus the first month's payment and sales tax on the down payment. nigel decides he wants to lease the accord, and he enters into a contract with the honda dealership. he makes his lease payment every month for 36 months and subsequently drives the vehicle for 36 months. (assume that the terms of his contract mean the contract cannot possibly be performed within a year.)

1. based on the terms of this contract, how long would the performance of the contract take? would this contract fall within the statute of frauds?

2. suppose that the terms of nigel's contract changed. suppose that instead of a 36-month car lease, nigel enters into a lease for the accord for 6 months. the 6-month lease is set to begin on the day he creates the contract at the honda dealer and end 6 months later. does this contract need to be in writing to be enforceable?

3. suppose that instead of leasing the accord, nigel decides to buy the honda accord for $22,180. would this contract need to be in writing to be enforceable?

4. suppose that nigel enters into the sales contract from the previous question (he buys the accord for $22,180). the honda dealership wrote the agreement, and nigel was the only party to sign. based on this information, who could sue about the agreed-upon terms of the contract if there was a problem?