Business Law Assignment

This Business Law Assignment discusses the case of Fallsview Glatt Kosher Caterers and Willie Rosenfeld. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract after he failed to pay $24,050 for a Passover package. The defendant claimed that the contract was unenforceable because it was not in writing and violated the UCC's Statute of Frauds. The author argues that the verbal contract is valid and enforceable as the main purpose of the contract was not the sale of goods but services.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Business Law Assignment
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Table of Contents
Facts.................................................................................................................................................2
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Decision...........................................................................................................................................2
Legal Reasons..................................................................................................................................2
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................3

2BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Facts
Spotlight on Goods and Services — The Statute of Frauds. Fallsview Glatt Kosher
Caterers ran a business that provided travel packages, including food, entertainment, and lectures
on religious subjects, to customers during the Passover holiday at a New York resort. Willie
Rosenfeld verbally agreed to pay Fallsview $24,050 for the Passover package for himself and his
family. Rosenfeld did not appear at the resort and never paid the money owed. Fallsview sued
Rosenfeld for breach of contract. Rosenfeld claimed that the contract was unenforceable because
it was not in writing and violated the UCC’s Statute of Frauds.
Issue
Is the contract valid?
Decision
In the given case, I would support the plaintiff of the case, Fallsview Glatt Kosher
Caterers as the company had suffered a monetary loss of $24,050 despite making necessary
arrangements relying on the verbal agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Legal Reasons
The reason for which I favor the plaintiff in this case is that the verbal contract entered
between the parties does render the contract as enforceable. The contention made by the
defendant that in absence of a written contract, it cannot be enforced under the UCC’s Statute of
Frauds is not valid. Although verbal contracts are enforceable but under UCC’s Statute of Frauds
require certain types of contracts to be made in writing to make them enforceable. Such types of
contract includes contracts for sale of interests in land, sale of goods for more than $500 or more,
consideration of marriage, contracts of suretyship, non-performance of contract within one year
(Anderson 2016).
In this case, the defendant contended that the contract entered into with the plaintiff was
not in writing; hence, it cannot be enforceable under the UCC’s Statute of Frauds under Articles
2-201. The sale of goods provision is dealt with the statute under Artcile The Plaintiff had rightly
contended that under the UCC’s Statute of Frauds only sale of goods only when the primary
purpose of the contract is sale of goods. Now, Sale of goods above $500 or more requires to be
made in writing whereas the contract entered into with the defendant was that of a service and
not goods. From the facts of the case, it can be further taken into account that the $24050 worth
travel package for Passover holiday included accommodations, food, entertainment, and lecture
on religious subjects. The price for these activities was all-inclusive within the price of $24,050.
In addition, the fundamental nature of such Passover Holiday retreat package was to
ensure a communal and family experience, which cannot be defined as goods as the activities
included within the package are essentially defined as services, which are not governed by the
UCC. Thus, it amounts to verbal contracts that do not fall under the category of contracts, which
requires to be made in writing. Therefore, the verbal contract entered into between the plaintiff

3BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
and the defendant is valid and shall be enforceable as the main purpose of the contract as not sale
of goods but services.

4BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Bibliography
Anderson, G.L., 2016. Sales of Goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. NY Practice Guide:
Business and Commercial, 3.
Uniform Commercial Code, Statute of fraud [2-201]