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.
Oakland, Michigan is a county located in the state of Michigan, United States. As a defendant in a civil lawsuit, I assert the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable in a court of law. In the case at hand, I am contending that the cause of action alleged against me cannot proceed because it falls under the scope of the Statute of Frauds. The purpose of this affirmative defense is to protect parties from fraudulent or unreliable claims that are not supported by written agreements. By raising this defense, I am asserting that the plaintiff's claim must fail due to the absence of a written agreement that satisfies the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. The appropriate Statute of Frauds in Michigan includes various types of contracts that require written documentation for enforceability. Some examples of contracts covered by this statute may include contracts for the sale of real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts to answer for the debt of another person (surety ship contracts), contracts related to the sale of goods valued over a certain threshold, and agreements made in consideration of marriage (prenuptial agreements). In a civil lawsuit, when the defendant raises the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds, it is essential to evaluate the specific contract at issue and whether it falls within the scope of the statute. This evaluation includes examining the alleged agreement, its terms, and conditions, as well as any evidence presented by the plaintiff to support their claim. If it is determined that the contract does not meet the requirements of the appropriate Statute of Frauds, it can constitute a valid defense, potentially leading to the dismissal of the cause of action against the defendant. Overall, as the defendant, I am asserting the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds in response to the civil lawsuit filed against me in Oakland, Michigan. By doing so, I am challenging the enforceability of the alleged agreement based on the absence of a written contract that satisfies the requirements specified in the Statute of Frauds.Oakland, Michigan is a county located in the state of Michigan, United States. As a defendant in a civil lawsuit, I assert the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable in a court of law. In the case at hand, I am contending that the cause of action alleged against me cannot proceed because it falls under the scope of the Statute of Frauds. The purpose of this affirmative defense is to protect parties from fraudulent or unreliable claims that are not supported by written agreements. By raising this defense, I am asserting that the plaintiff's claim must fail due to the absence of a written agreement that satisfies the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. The appropriate Statute of Frauds in Michigan includes various types of contracts that require written documentation for enforceability. Some examples of contracts covered by this statute may include contracts for the sale of real estate, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts to answer for the debt of another person (surety ship contracts), contracts related to the sale of goods valued over a certain threshold, and agreements made in consideration of marriage (prenuptial agreements). In a civil lawsuit, when the defendant raises the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds, it is essential to evaluate the specific contract at issue and whether it falls within the scope of the statute. This evaluation includes examining the alleged agreement, its terms, and conditions, as well as any evidence presented by the plaintiff to support their claim. If it is determined that the contract does not meet the requirements of the appropriate Statute of Frauds, it can constitute a valid defense, potentially leading to the dismissal of the cause of action against the defendant. Overall, as the defendant, I am asserting the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds in response to the civil lawsuit filed against me in Oakland, Michigan. By doing so, I am challenging the enforceability of the alleged agreement based on the absence of a written contract that satisfies the requirements specified in the Statute of Frauds.
