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 Missouri, an answer by a defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds is a crucial legal document that outlines the defendant's position and seeks to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. This defense is based on the premise that certain types of agreements must be in writing to be enforceable under the statute of frauds. A defendant's answer in Missouri asserting the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds typically includes several key elements. These elements may vary depending on the specific case, but generally include: 1. Identification of the parties: The defendant's answer starts by identifying the plaintiff and defendant by their legal names. This ensures that the court is clear on who is involved in the case. 2. Background and jurisdictional facts: The defendant provides a concise summary of the background facts related to the disputed transaction or agreement. This helps the court understand the context of the lawsuit. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the appropriate Missouri court has jurisdiction over the matter. 3. Affirmative defense of the statute of frauds: The defendant specifically alleges that the plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds in Missouri requires certain types of contracts, such as contracts involving real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, and contracts for the sale of goods over a specified dollar amount, to be in writing to be enforceable. The defendant presents arguments to support this defense, citing relevant sections of the statute, and may also assert that no written agreement exists or that any alleged agreement lacks essential terms required by the statute. 4. Factual and legal grounds: The defendant outlines the factual and legal grounds supporting their affirmative defense. They may present evidence or legal reasoning to demonstrate why the plaintiff's claims should be barred by the statute of frauds. This may include providing details about the alleged oral agreement, demonstrating its non-compliance with the statute, and refuting any exceptions to the statute that the plaintiff may argue. 5. Request for relief: The defendant concludes their answer by requesting that the court dismiss the plaintiff's claims on the grounds that they are barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. They may also request any other relief deemed necessary, such as attorneys' fees or costs associated with defending the lawsuit. It is important to note that while the elements described above are general, the specific content and structure of a defendant's answer may vary depending on the circumstances of the case and the legal strategy adopted by the defense. Additionally, there may be specific types of Missouri answers, such as answers to counterclaims or third-party claims, that can also assert the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds.In Missouri, an answer by a defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds is a crucial legal document that outlines the defendant's position and seeks to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. This defense is based on the premise that certain types of agreements must be in writing to be enforceable under the statute of frauds. A defendant's answer in Missouri asserting the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds typically includes several key elements. These elements may vary depending on the specific case, but generally include: 1. Identification of the parties: The defendant's answer starts by identifying the plaintiff and defendant by their legal names. This ensures that the court is clear on who is involved in the case. 2. Background and jurisdictional facts: The defendant provides a concise summary of the background facts related to the disputed transaction or agreement. This helps the court understand the context of the lawsuit. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the appropriate Missouri court has jurisdiction over the matter. 3. Affirmative defense of the statute of frauds: The defendant specifically alleges that the plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds in Missouri requires certain types of contracts, such as contracts involving real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, and contracts for the sale of goods over a specified dollar amount, to be in writing to be enforceable. The defendant presents arguments to support this defense, citing relevant sections of the statute, and may also assert that no written agreement exists or that any alleged agreement lacks essential terms required by the statute. 4. Factual and legal grounds: The defendant outlines the factual and legal grounds supporting their affirmative defense. They may present evidence or legal reasoning to demonstrate why the plaintiff's claims should be barred by the statute of frauds. This may include providing details about the alleged oral agreement, demonstrating its non-compliance with the statute, and refuting any exceptions to the statute that the plaintiff may argue. 5. Request for relief: The defendant concludes their answer by requesting that the court dismiss the plaintiff's claims on the grounds that they are barred by the appropriate statute of frauds. They may also request any other relief deemed necessary, such as attorneys' fees or costs associated with defending the lawsuit. It is important to note that while the elements described above are general, the specific content and structure of a defendant's answer may vary depending on the circumstances of the case and the legal strategy adopted by the defense. Additionally, there may be specific types of Missouri answers, such as answers to counterclaims or third-party claims, that can also assert the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate statute of frauds.
