A defendant is not confined to denials of the allegations of the complaint or petition, but is entitled to set out new matter in defense or as a basis for affirmative relief. Oral contracts can be just as valid and enforceable as written contracts.
The Second Defense of this form gives an example of pleading such a defense and is a generic example of an answer and affirmative defense that may be referred to when preparing such a pleading for your particular state.
Keywords: Arkansas, Answer by Defendant, Civil Lawsuit, Affirmative Defense, Cause of Action, Barred, Statute of Frauds In Arkansas, when a defendant in a civil lawsuit pleads an affirmative defense, they may assert that the cause of action brought against them is barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. This defense is used to challenge the validity and enforceability of the alleged contract or agreement. There are different types of Arkansas Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds, including: 1. Written Contract Requirement: The defendant argues that the alleged contract or agreement falls within the scope of the Statute of Frauds, which mandates that contracts pertaining to real estate, marriage, goods priced above a certain threshold, and agreements that cannot be performed within one year, must be in writing to be legally valid. 2. Lack of Signed Writing: The defendant contends that there is no written document bearing the signatures of both parties in accordance with the Statute of Frauds. They assert that the absence of this signed writing renders any alleged oral or implied agreement unenforceable. 3. Inadequate Terms: The defendant asserts that the purported contract fails to contain the essential terms required by the Statute of Frauds, such as the identities of the parties, the subject of the agreement, and the terms and conditions of performance. 4. Partial Performance Exception: The defendant argues that even if the alleged contract does not comply with the Statute of Frauds, they have partially performed their obligations under it. They claim that their partial performance creates an exception to the Statute, making the contract enforceable to the extent of their performance. It is crucial for the defendant to provide a detailed and comprehensive answer when pleading the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds. They must articulate the specific grounds on which the defense is based, citing relevant provisions of the statute and any supporting case law. Consulting with an experienced attorney in Arkansas is highly recommended navigating the complexities of this defense and present a strong case.Keywords: Arkansas, Answer by Defendant, Civil Lawsuit, Affirmative Defense, Cause of Action, Barred, Statute of Frauds In Arkansas, when a defendant in a civil lawsuit pleads an affirmative defense, they may assert that the cause of action brought against them is barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. This defense is used to challenge the validity and enforceability of the alleged contract or agreement. There are different types of Arkansas Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds, including: 1. Written Contract Requirement: The defendant argues that the alleged contract or agreement falls within the scope of the Statute of Frauds, which mandates that contracts pertaining to real estate, marriage, goods priced above a certain threshold, and agreements that cannot be performed within one year, must be in writing to be legally valid. 2. Lack of Signed Writing: The defendant contends that there is no written document bearing the signatures of both parties in accordance with the Statute of Frauds. They assert that the absence of this signed writing renders any alleged oral or implied agreement unenforceable. 3. Inadequate Terms: The defendant asserts that the purported contract fails to contain the essential terms required by the Statute of Frauds, such as the identities of the parties, the subject of the agreement, and the terms and conditions of performance. 4. Partial Performance Exception: The defendant argues that even if the alleged contract does not comply with the Statute of Frauds, they have partially performed their obligations under it. They claim that their partial performance creates an exception to the Statute, making the contract enforceable to the extent of their performance. It is crucial for the defendant to provide a detailed and comprehensive answer when pleading the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds. They must articulate the specific grounds on which the defense is based, citing relevant provisions of the statute and any supporting case law. Consulting with an experienced attorney in Arkansas is highly recommended navigating the complexities of this defense and present a strong case.
