Tom was interested in buying a car from Pete, a private seller well-known for reselling cars that belonged to famous celebrities. Tom bought a
car, and agreed to make monthly payments to Pete over the course of 5 years. Additionally, Tom’s friend, Frank, promised orally that if Tom
could not make a monthly payment in time, Frank would make it for him. In the eleventh month after the purchase date, Tom was not able to
pay his monthly payment. So, Pete sought the payment from Frank. However, Frank responded that he was not obligated to pay Pete
anything. Consequently, Pete took Frank to court arguing that Frank had failed to pay the monthly payment that he was obligated to pursuant
to the oral agreement they had made. The court, however, ruled in Frank’s favor, holding that because the secondary obligation was not in
writing, the alleged contract was not enforceable.

But what if the facts o f the case were different? Select each set of facts below that would alter the outcome of the court’s decision.

rev: 04_23_2016_QC_CS-49862

 

1. The main reason for Frank’s incurring the secondary obligation was so that Frank could carpool with Tom to work as Frank and Tom were
co-workers. Prior to Tom's getting a car, Frank had relied on public transportation - an option substantially more expensive than having Tom take him Tom's new car.

2. Frank had signed in writing that he would pay any monthly payment that Tom missed at the same time that Tom contracted with Pete.3. The car that Tom bought was one that had been customized by Pete pursuant to Tom’s requests.4. Frank admitted in court that he had orally agreed to make any monthly payments that Tom could not pay in time.