Question

3. was there a contract in this case?

CASE SUMMARY 9.1 Professional Bull Riders, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc., unpublished order and judgment dated August 15, 2005 (10th Cir. 2005) Statute of Frauds For many years, AutoZone, a Nevada corporation, was an official sponsor of the Bud Light Professional Bull Rider Series Page 192 organized and conducted by Professional Bull Riders (PBR), a Colorado corporation. In late 2000, AutoZone verbally agreed to sponsor PBR events for a period of two additional years, from December 29, 2000, to December 31, 2002. At the same time, AutoZone and PBR agreed that AutoZone could terminate its sponsorship by giving notice in writing to PBR by August 15, 2001. In January 2002, AutoZone notified PBR that it would not sponsor any PBR events in 2002. PBR then sued AutoZone for breach of contract. CASE QUESTIONS 1. Could AutoZone use the statute of frauds as a defense in this case? Explain. 2. In your opinion, should the writing requirement set forth in the statute of frauds apply to all commercial agreements as a matter of sound public policy? Explain why or why not.

4. Who wins? Why

Answer 1

1. After the reading that case, Autozone may not use the statute of frauds as a defense in this case because as per the verbal agreement, Autozone and PBR, both are agreed on a contract and in this agreement they declared that AutoZone could terminate its sponsorship by giving notice by 15 August 2001. However, in this case, Autozone notified PBR that it would not sponsor any PBR events in 2002 against the agreement.

2. The writing requirement should forth in the statute of frauds apply to all commercial contracts as a matter of sound policy because the sound policy helps impose the same norms, standards, and punishments for non-performance as are imposed on providers. In commercial agreement, writing requirements help consider the needs and deal as a proof in the statute of frauds.

If these requirements are not in writing, it may make trouble applying the statute of frauds to all commercial agreements.

3. Yes, there is a contract in this case because Autozone and PBR make a verbal agreement. As per the contract law, an oral agreement is also a type of transaction, and if any breach of the contract found, then the affected company may file a case.

4. As per the case and contract law, PBR may win because Autozone sued a breach of contract by notifying PBR that it would not sponsor any PBR events after the date of termination. So PBR wins the case.

A Thumbs Up! Would be really helpful for me. If you have any questions, please leave a comment and I will get back to you as soon as possible.