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.
In the District of Columbia, the statute of frauds serves as an affirmative defense that a defendant can raise in a civil lawsuit to argue that the cause of action against them is barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. This defense is meant to protect parties from certain types of agreements that are not properly memorialized in writing. Under District of Columbia law, certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. These contracts include agreements for the sale of goods over a certain value, contracts for the sale or transfer of real estate, leases lasting longer than one year, contracts to pay the debt of another, and agreements that cannot be performed within one year. When serving their answer in the civil lawsuit, the defendant can assert the affirmative defense of the appropriate statute of frauds. The defendant should provide a detailed and explicit response to the allegations made by the plaintiff, explaining why the cause of action should be barred due to the lack of written agreement or compliance with the statute of frauds. If the defendant believes that the cause of action falls within the purview of the statute of frauds, they can provide a comprehensive answer explaining how the alleged agreement fails to meet the required elements of a valid written contract. This may include citing specific provisions of the statute of frauds applicable to the type of contract at issue. It is essential for the defendant's answer to be well-researched, precise, and specific when discussing the statute of frauds. By providing a detailed explanation and citing relevant case law or statutory provisions, the defendant can present a strong argument to support their affirmative defense. Ultimately, whether the defendant's answer successfully bars the cause of action will depend on the court's interpretation of the relevant statute of frauds and the specifics of the alleged agreement. By clearly presenting their defense, the defendant can effectively assert the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds in a civil lawsuit in the District of Columbia.In the District of Columbia, the statute of frauds serves as an affirmative defense that a defendant can raise in a civil lawsuit to argue that the cause of action against them is barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. This defense is meant to protect parties from certain types of agreements that are not properly memorialized in writing. Under District of Columbia law, certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. These contracts include agreements for the sale of goods over a certain value, contracts for the sale or transfer of real estate, leases lasting longer than one year, contracts to pay the debt of another, and agreements that cannot be performed within one year. When serving their answer in the civil lawsuit, the defendant can assert the affirmative defense of the appropriate statute of frauds. The defendant should provide a detailed and explicit response to the allegations made by the plaintiff, explaining why the cause of action should be barred due to the lack of written agreement or compliance with the statute of frauds. If the defendant believes that the cause of action falls within the purview of the statute of frauds, they can provide a comprehensive answer explaining how the alleged agreement fails to meet the required elements of a valid written contract. This may include citing specific provisions of the statute of frauds applicable to the type of contract at issue. It is essential for the defendant's answer to be well-researched, precise, and specific when discussing the statute of frauds. By providing a detailed explanation and citing relevant case law or statutory provisions, the defendant can present a strong argument to support their affirmative defense. Ultimately, whether the defendant's answer successfully bars the cause of action will depend on the court's interpretation of the relevant statute of frauds and the specifics of the alleged agreement. By clearly presenting their defense, the defendant can effectively assert the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds in a civil lawsuit in the District of Columbia.
