Assume at the end of the meeting between Jack and Hal and Sophia, they orally agree to enter into three separate contracts. One is for the sale of the intellectual property of the restaurant itself for $1,000,000. The second contract is for the sale of the building that the restaurant is in for $250,000. The third is for the original sign that was outside the restaurant that Jack had in his garage for $400. Which of these agreements violates the Statute of Frauds?

Hello. You forgot to enter the answer options. The options are:

"A. The sale of the building and the sale of the intellectual property.  B. The sale of the intellectual property and the sale of the sign.  C. All of the agreements violate the Statute of Frauds.  D. The sale of the building only."

D. The sale of the building only.

Explanation:

According to the fraud statute, some types of agreements require a written contract to be considered valid and effective. This contract must be signed by all parties involved, who must read the contract and agree with all clauses. The sale of buildings is one of those agreements and as you can see in the question above, Jack and Hal and Sophia verbally agreed to the sale of the period where a restaurant is located, but they did not make a written contract about it. For this reason, we can consider that the sale of the building violates the Fraud Statute.

you should try adrenaline. it kicks in in situations like this.

prime rate/ credit history apex