Mitchellj
Jennifer Mitchell
LEX 150 800
Module 2 Assignment
Issue:
Is the exculpatory clause valid against Koch?
Rule:
An exculpatory agreement may be set aside if there is either fraud in the inducement or fraud in the execution of the agreement. Rudolph v. Sante Fe Park Enterprises, Inc. (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 372 In this case, the facts asserted in the certified question of law do not establish that plaintiff was induced to execute the release and waiver of liability through fraud.
Analysis:
Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries sustained while working on defendant’s racetrack. Before entering pit area Plaintiff had to sign an exculpatory agreement in order to proceed to his work station. Plaintiff denies reading said agreement, but admits to signing it.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Court granted the appeal and held that the exculpatory agreement barred plaintiff's action against defendant.
I do not agree with Lawson that the Statute of Frauds is a valid defense. The promissory estoppel provides that if parties enter into an oral contract that should be in writing under the Statute of Frauds, the oral promise is enforceable against the promisor if three conditions are met: 1. the promise induces action or forbearance of action by another, 2. The reliance on the oral promise was foreseeable, and 3. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the oral promise.
LEX 150 800
Module 2 Assignment
Issue:
Is the exculpatory clause valid against Koch?
Rule:
An exculpatory agreement may be set aside if there is either fraud in the inducement or fraud in the execution of the agreement. Rudolph v. Sante Fe Park Enterprises, Inc. (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 372 In this case, the facts asserted in the certified question of law do not establish that plaintiff was induced to execute the release and waiver of liability through fraud.
Analysis:
Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries sustained while working on defendant’s racetrack. Before entering pit area Plaintiff had to sign an exculpatory agreement in order to proceed to his work station. Plaintiff denies reading said agreement, but admits to signing it.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Court granted the appeal and held that the exculpatory agreement barred plaintiff's action against defendant.
I do not agree with Lawson that the Statute of Frauds is a valid defense. The promissory estoppel provides that if parties enter into an oral contract that should be in writing under the Statute of Frauds, the oral promise is enforceable against the promisor if three conditions are met: 1. the promise induces action or forbearance of action by another, 2. The reliance on the oral promise was foreseeable, and 3. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the oral promise.