Contracts and Sales Multistate Bar Practice Exam

When can an oral admission in court be used in relation to the statute of frauds?

1. Only when both parties are willing to testify

2. It can be used only if it relates to a breach of contract

3. To the extent that the admission acknowledges the existence of a contract

4. When the admission was made voluntarily, without pressure

The correct answer is: To the extent that the admission acknowledges the existence of a contract

The correct answer highlights that an oral admission in court can be used regarding the statute of frauds to the extent that the admission acknowledges the existence of a contract. In the context of the statute of frauds, certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. However, if one party makes an oral admission in court that acknowledges the existence of a contract – even if that contract does not meet the writing requirement – this admission can serve as evidence to enforce the agreement. This principle recognizes that an admission can indicate acceptance of the terms of a contract, effectively bypassing the need for a written document. It underscores the notion that while the statute of frauds requires a written agreement for enforceability in cases involving certain types of contracts (such as those involving real property or contracts that cannot be performed within one year), an admission can substantiate the claim that a contract indeed exists, provided it is clear and unambiguous. In contrast, the other options either place undue limitations on the circumstances under which the admission is valid or mischaracterize the requirements concerning the use of admissions in relation to the statute of frauds. For example, requiring both parties to be willing to testify is unnecessary for the admission's use in establishing the existence of a contract. Similarly