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.
Idaho Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds When facing a civil lawsuit in Idaho, defendants may respond by asserting the affirmative defense that the cause of action brought against them is barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. The statute of frauds is a legal doctrine that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. By raising this defense, the defendant is arguing that the plaintiff's claim is invalid due to the absence of a written agreement that complies with the statute. There are different situations in which a defendant might utilize this defense in Idaho. Here are a few notable examples: 1. Real Estate Contracts: In Idaho, real estate transactions generally fall under the statute of frauds. Any claim based on an alleged breach of a real estate contract would require a written agreement, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, to be valid. Therefore, a defendant could argue that the lack of a written contract bars the cause of action. 2. Sale of Goods: Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which Idaho has adopted, contracts for the sale of goods worth $500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable. If the plaintiff is alleging a breach of such a contract, the defendant may allege that the transaction did not meet the writing requirement, thus invoking the statute of frauds as a defense. 3. Guarantees and Promises to Pay Debt: If the plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged breach of contract where the defendant guaranteed the debt of another or made a promise to pay a debt, Idaho's statute of frauds may come into play. The defendant could assert that the plaintiff's action is barred unless there is a written agreement evidencing the guarantee or promise to pay. 4. Contracts Not to be Performed Within One Year: According to Idaho's statute of frauds, contracts that cannot be performed within one year from the date of making must be in writing. If the plaintiff's claim is based on an oral agreement that falls within this category, the defendant may raise the defense of the statute of frauds. In an answer to a civil lawsuit, the defendant would present their reply to the plaintiff's allegations, raising the affirmative defense that the cause of action is barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. It is essential for defendants to consult with an experienced attorney to ensure proper application and presentation of this defense in Idaho courts.Idaho Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds When facing a civil lawsuit in Idaho, defendants may respond by asserting the affirmative defense that the cause of action brought against them is barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. The statute of frauds is a legal doctrine that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. By raising this defense, the defendant is arguing that the plaintiff's claim is invalid due to the absence of a written agreement that complies with the statute. There are different situations in which a defendant might utilize this defense in Idaho. Here are a few notable examples: 1. Real Estate Contracts: In Idaho, real estate transactions generally fall under the statute of frauds. Any claim based on an alleged breach of a real estate contract would require a written agreement, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, to be valid. Therefore, a defendant could argue that the lack of a written contract bars the cause of action. 2. Sale of Goods: Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which Idaho has adopted, contracts for the sale of goods worth $500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable. If the plaintiff is alleging a breach of such a contract, the defendant may allege that the transaction did not meet the writing requirement, thus invoking the statute of frauds as a defense. 3. Guarantees and Promises to Pay Debt: If the plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged breach of contract where the defendant guaranteed the debt of another or made a promise to pay a debt, Idaho's statute of frauds may come into play. The defendant could assert that the plaintiff's action is barred unless there is a written agreement evidencing the guarantee or promise to pay. 4. Contracts Not to be Performed Within One Year: According to Idaho's statute of frauds, contracts that cannot be performed within one year from the date of making must be in writing. If the plaintiff's claim is based on an oral agreement that falls within this category, the defendant may raise the defense of the statute of frauds. In an answer to a civil lawsuit, the defendant would present their reply to the plaintiff's allegations, raising the affirmative defense that the cause of action is barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. It is essential for defendants to consult with an experienced attorney to ensure proper application and presentation of this defense in Idaho courts.
