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 Wake, North Carolina, the legal term "Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds" refers to a specific response by the defendant in a civil lawsuit asserting the affirmative defense that the claim brought against them is barred under the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a law that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable. It aims to prevent disputes arising from oral agreements that can be easily misunderstood or fabricated. When a defendant uses the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds, they are asserting that the claim being brought against them is based on an oral contract that falls within the scope of the statute, and thus, should not be legally enforceable. There are different types of situations where a defendant may employ this defense. They include, but are not limited to: 1. Real Estate Transactions: If the civil lawsuit involves a claim related to a contract for the sale or lease of real estate, and the agreement was not reduced to writing, the defendant may argue that the claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds. 2. Guarantees and Surety ships: In cases where a claim is based on an oral promise to guarantee or provide surety for another person’s obligations, the defendant may assert the defense of the Statute of Frauds if such promise was not memorialized in a written agreement. 3. Contracts Not Performable Within One Year: If the alleged contract in question cannot be completed within one year from the date it was made, and there is no written evidence of the agreement, the defendant may contend that the Statute of Frauds bars the claim. 4. Sale of Goods: If the lawsuit revolves around an oral contract for the sale of goods valuing $500 or more, and there is no written evidence of the agreement, the defendant may argue that the Statute of Frauds prevents enforcement of the claim. 5. Agreements for Undertaking Debts of Others: When the defendant is accused of orally agreeing to assume someone else's debt or obligation, they can utilize the defense of the Statute of Frauds if the agreement was not reduced to writing. In summary, an Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds is a legal response in Wake, North Carolina, where the defendant maintains that the claim made against them cannot proceed due to the requirement of a written contract under the Statute of Frauds. Various situations, including real estate transactions, guarantees, contracts not performable within one year, sales of goods, and agreements to undertake debts, can trigger the use of this defense.In Wake, North Carolina, the legal term "Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds" refers to a specific response by the defendant in a civil lawsuit asserting the affirmative defense that the claim brought against them is barred under the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a law that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable. It aims to prevent disputes arising from oral agreements that can be easily misunderstood or fabricated. When a defendant uses the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds, they are asserting that the claim being brought against them is based on an oral contract that falls within the scope of the statute, and thus, should not be legally enforceable. There are different types of situations where a defendant may employ this defense. They include, but are not limited to: 1. Real Estate Transactions: If the civil lawsuit involves a claim related to a contract for the sale or lease of real estate, and the agreement was not reduced to writing, the defendant may argue that the claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds. 2. Guarantees and Surety ships: In cases where a claim is based on an oral promise to guarantee or provide surety for another person’s obligations, the defendant may assert the defense of the Statute of Frauds if such promise was not memorialized in a written agreement. 3. Contracts Not Performable Within One Year: If the alleged contract in question cannot be completed within one year from the date it was made, and there is no written evidence of the agreement, the defendant may contend that the Statute of Frauds bars the claim. 4. Sale of Goods: If the lawsuit revolves around an oral contract for the sale of goods valuing $500 or more, and there is no written evidence of the agreement, the defendant may argue that the Statute of Frauds prevents enforcement of the claim. 5. Agreements for Undertaking Debts of Others: When the defendant is accused of orally agreeing to assume someone else's debt or obligation, they can utilize the defense of the Statute of Frauds if the agreement was not reduced to writing. In summary, an Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of the Cause of Action being Barred by the Appropriate Statute of Frauds is a legal response in Wake, North Carolina, where the defendant maintains that the claim made against them cannot proceed due to the requirement of a written contract under the Statute of Frauds. Various situations, including real estate transactions, guarantees, contracts not performable within one year, sales of goods, and agreements to undertake debts, can trigger the use of this defense.
