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.
Oregon 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 Oregon, when a defendant is facing a civil lawsuit, they may assert an affirmative defense known as the Statute of Frauds to argue that the plaintiff's cause of action is barred. The Statute of Frauds is a legal doctrine originating from English common law and is intended to protect parties from fraudulent or unenforceable contracts. This defense requires that certain types of contracts be in writing to be legally enforceable. The Oregon Statute of Frauds is codified under ORS 41.580, which outlines the specific categories of contracts that must be in writing. These categories include agreements involving the sale or transfer of real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, promises to answer for the debt or default of another, agreements made in consideration of marriage, and contracts for the sale of goods valued at $500 or more. When a defendant wishes to raise the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds in an answer to a civil lawsuit, they must provide a detailed response explaining how the plaintiff's cause of action falls within the categories of contracts requiring written documentation. The defendant may argue that the alleged oral or implied contract does not meet the criteria for enforceability under the Statute of Frauds. Oregon recognizes different types of Statute of Frauds defenses in civil lawsuits, including: 1. Real Estate Transactions: If the plaintiff's cause of action relates to the sale or transfer of real estate, the defendant can argue that without a written agreement, the contract is unenforceable. 2. Contracts for Services: In cases where the plaintiff claims there was an oral agreement for services that cannot be performed within one year, the defendant can invoke the Statute of Frauds defense to counter the claim. 3. Guaranty or Surety ship Agreements: When a plaintiff asserts that the defendant guaranteed the debt or default of another party, the defendant can contend that the absence of a written agreement bars the cause of action. 4. Premarital Agreements: If the plaintiff claims there was an oral agreement made in consideration of marriage, the defendant can assert the Statute of Frauds defense if no written agreement exists. 5. Sale of Goods: Lastly, if the plaintiff asserts that they had an oral contract for the sale of goods valued at $500 or more, the defendant can argue that the absence of a written agreement under the Statute of Frauds renders the cause of action unenforceable. In conclusion, defendants in Oregon civil lawsuits can assert the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds to challenge the enforceability of certain types of contracts. By demonstrating that the plaintiff's cause of action falls within the categories requiring written documentation, defendants can seek to have the lawsuit barred. It is crucial for defendants to consult with legal professionals to understand the specific requirements and implications of the Oregon Statute of Frauds in their case.Oregon 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 Oregon, when a defendant is facing a civil lawsuit, they may assert an affirmative defense known as the Statute of Frauds to argue that the plaintiff's cause of action is barred. The Statute of Frauds is a legal doctrine originating from English common law and is intended to protect parties from fraudulent or unenforceable contracts. This defense requires that certain types of contracts be in writing to be legally enforceable. The Oregon Statute of Frauds is codified under ORS 41.580, which outlines the specific categories of contracts that must be in writing. These categories include agreements involving the sale or transfer of real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, promises to answer for the debt or default of another, agreements made in consideration of marriage, and contracts for the sale of goods valued at $500 or more. When a defendant wishes to raise the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds in an answer to a civil lawsuit, they must provide a detailed response explaining how the plaintiff's cause of action falls within the categories of contracts requiring written documentation. The defendant may argue that the alleged oral or implied contract does not meet the criteria for enforceability under the Statute of Frauds. Oregon recognizes different types of Statute of Frauds defenses in civil lawsuits, including: 1. Real Estate Transactions: If the plaintiff's cause of action relates to the sale or transfer of real estate, the defendant can argue that without a written agreement, the contract is unenforceable. 2. Contracts for Services: In cases where the plaintiff claims there was an oral agreement for services that cannot be performed within one year, the defendant can invoke the Statute of Frauds defense to counter the claim. 3. Guaranty or Surety ship Agreements: When a plaintiff asserts that the defendant guaranteed the debt or default of another party, the defendant can contend that the absence of a written agreement bars the cause of action. 4. Premarital Agreements: If the plaintiff claims there was an oral agreement made in consideration of marriage, the defendant can assert the Statute of Frauds defense if no written agreement exists. 5. Sale of Goods: Lastly, if the plaintiff asserts that they had an oral contract for the sale of goods valued at $500 or more, the defendant can argue that the absence of a written agreement under the Statute of Frauds renders the cause of action unenforceable. In conclusion, defendants in Oregon civil lawsuits can assert the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds to challenge the enforceability of certain types of contracts. By demonstrating that the plaintiff's cause of action falls within the categories requiring written documentation, defendants can seek to have the lawsuit barred. It is crucial for defendants to consult with legal professionals to understand the specific requirements and implications of the Oregon Statute of Frauds in their case.
