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.
Minnesota Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds In the state of Minnesota, when a defendant in a civil lawsuit claims the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds, it is essential to provide a detailed response to the allegations. This answer aims to shed light on the various aspects of this defense, its applicability, and potential variations. Statute of Frauds in Minnesota: The statute of frauds in Minnesota applies to certain types of contracts that must be in writing to be enforceable. These contracts include agreements involving the sale of real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, promises to pay another person's debt, contracts made in consideration of marriage, and contracts for the sale of goods exceeding a certain value. By invoking the statute of frauds, the defendant asserts that the purported cause of action falls within one of these categories and, consequently, is not enforceable because it lacks a written agreement. Types of Minnesota Answers Alleging the Affirmative Defense: 1. General denial: The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims and raises the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. The defendant must argue that the alleged contract is invalid due to insufficient written evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements. 2. Specific denial by category: In this type of response, the defendant identifies each alleged contractual category (e.g., sale of real estate, contract exceeding one year, etc.) and specifically denies the existence of an enforceable agreement within the respective category. The defendant must argue that the contract does not meet the required elements or is exempt from the statute of frauds. 3. Affirmative defense with counterclaim: The defendant not only raises the affirmative defense but also asserts a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The counterclaim might seek declaratory relief, damages, or other remedies. This response aims to demonstrate that not only is the cause of action barred by the statute of frauds, but the defendant has a valid claim against the plaintiff as well. 4. Statute of limitations defense: Occasionally, the defendant may also raise the defense of statute of limitations concurrently with the statute of frauds. The defendant argues that even if a valid contract existed, the plaintiff's action is barred because it was filed after the statutory time limit to sue had expired. This additional defense can strengthen the overall position of the defendant. When filing an answer in Minnesota, it is crucial to consult with an attorney familiar with the state's laws to ensure a proper and effective response. Each case may have unique circumstances and legal considerations, thus requiring specific strategies and arguments to establish a successful defense based on the appropriate statute of frauds.Minnesota Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds In the state of Minnesota, when a defendant in a civil lawsuit claims the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds, it is essential to provide a detailed response to the allegations. This answer aims to shed light on the various aspects of this defense, its applicability, and potential variations. Statute of Frauds in Minnesota: The statute of frauds in Minnesota applies to certain types of contracts that must be in writing to be enforceable. These contracts include agreements involving the sale of real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, promises to pay another person's debt, contracts made in consideration of marriage, and contracts for the sale of goods exceeding a certain value. By invoking the statute of frauds, the defendant asserts that the purported cause of action falls within one of these categories and, consequently, is not enforceable because it lacks a written agreement. Types of Minnesota Answers Alleging the Affirmative Defense: 1. General denial: The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims and raises the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. The defendant must argue that the alleged contract is invalid due to insufficient written evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements. 2. Specific denial by category: In this type of response, the defendant identifies each alleged contractual category (e.g., sale of real estate, contract exceeding one year, etc.) and specifically denies the existence of an enforceable agreement within the respective category. The defendant must argue that the contract does not meet the required elements or is exempt from the statute of frauds. 3. Affirmative defense with counterclaim: The defendant not only raises the affirmative defense but also asserts a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The counterclaim might seek declaratory relief, damages, or other remedies. This response aims to demonstrate that not only is the cause of action barred by the statute of frauds, but the defendant has a valid claim against the plaintiff as well. 4. Statute of limitations defense: Occasionally, the defendant may also raise the defense of statute of limitations concurrently with the statute of frauds. The defendant argues that even if a valid contract existed, the plaintiff's action is barred because it was filed after the statutory time limit to sue had expired. This additional defense can strengthen the overall position of the defendant. When filing an answer in Minnesota, it is crucial to consult with an attorney familiar with the state's laws to ensure a proper and effective response. Each case may have unique circumstances and legal considerations, thus requiring specific strategies and arguments to establish a successful defense based on the appropriate statute of frauds.
