Please respond to the two below student response on the highlighted topic:

1) The Statute of Frauds

The statute of frauds require that some contracts be memorialized in a "writing." Do you think that more contracts should have to be in writing to be enforceable? If so, what types of contracts do you believe should also require a written agreement? Do you think that it is unfair to refuse to enforce an agreement just because it was not in writing if the statute of frauds required it to be so? Do you think that electronic signatures made during an internet transaction should be given the same legal effect as though you were signing a document in person? Why or why not? What do you think about such clauses? Do you think they are fair? Do you think they should be included in contracts? Why? And, if they are, whose morality controls? What if a studio wanted to terminate their movie contract with Tom Cruise, for example, because the Church of Scientology was getting some negative press in recent days. Doesn't a company assume the risk that their talent may behave badly or may behave in a way that will be viewed negatively by some? Thoughts?

Student response:

1. Yes, I think that more contracts should be in writing to be enforceable, this is because every contract is an agreement but not every agreement is a contract. When a contract is in writing it provides evidence in case of a breach or anything done by either party against the contract that is wrong.

2. The types of contracts that I believe should be in writing are: Void, valid, voidable contracts. Bilateral contracts, special contracts and simple contracts, and Illegal contracts.

3. No, its is not unfair, this is because the statue of Fraud is a common law that requires written contracts of a certain to be binding. Meaning that it is mandatory for a contract to be in writing.

4. Yes, I think electronic signatures should be given the same legal effect as though done in person because when conducting an electronic signature there are measures put in place concerning the electronic signatures meaning that they are very secure.

5. I think that these clauses are vital since they put a legally binding ground on a contract.

6. At some point they turn out to be unfair, this is because in the case of a contract that was but not in writing it means it can not be enforceable by law meaning that in case a party in a contract suffered damages or injuries the other party can not be enforceable by law.

7. Yes, encouraging contracts to be in writing will be efficient and better since there will be evident when the time comes and the contract needs to be enforceable by law. Also, encouraging signatures to be made in person and if electronically measures to be put in place to enhance its legality.

8. If they are included in a ca contracts the morality controls will be of the parties involved in the contract, this means that it will keep both parties morally upright in terms of relating with the contract because they would be knowing that the contract can be enforced by law.

9. Yes, a company may assume the risk, this is because for a studio to be in a good place and continue carrying out business as usual, they need to have a good reputation in place, but with the church of Scientology doing negative and bad press in them, they might fear the risk and terminate their contract with Tom Cruise.

2)What Does Morality Have to Do With It?

Many contracts, particularly those in the sports and entertainment industry, contain something know as a "morals clause." The morals clauses allows one party to unilaterally terminate the agreement if the individual engages in conduct that could have some sort of negative impact upon the other, usually a company or organization. These contract provisions, for example, are used to terminate an agreement when one party's conduct is detrimental to other's image or because that conduct devalues the party's performance. These provisions act as a means of discharging a party's obligation to perform under a contract.Tiger Woods, for example, had a number of contracts for endorsement deals with various companies. After a scandal regarding his behavior came to light, however, many companies unilaterally terminated their agreements with him, citing their morals clause, and claiming that Woods' bad behavior had made him less valuable to them as a product endorser and reflected negatively on their company.These clauses though have had a long history and they have also been used by studios during the McCarthy era to fire writers and other talent accused of being Communists. What do you think about such clauses? Should they be permitted? Why or why not? If so, what sorts of things do you believe should be the proper subject of such clauses.

Student Response:

Many contracts, particularly those in the sports and entertainment industry, contain something know as a "morals clause." The morals clauses allows one party to unilaterally terminate the agreement if the individual engages in conduct that could have some sort of negative impact upon the other, usually a company or organization. These contract provisions, for example, are used to terminate an agreement when one party's conduct is detrimental to other's image or because that conduct devalues the party's performance. These provisions act as a means of discharging a party's obligation to perform under a contract. Tiger Woods, for example, had a number of contracts for endorsement deals with various companies. After a scandal regarding his behavior came to light, however, many companies unilaterally terminated their agreements with him, citing their morals clause, and claiming that Woods' bad behavior had made him less valuable to them as a product endorser and reflected negatively on their company. These clauses though have had a long history and they have also been used by studios during the McCarthy era to fire writers and other talent accused of being Communists. What do you think about such clauses? Should they be permitted? Why or why not? If so, what sorts of things do you believe should be the proper subject of such clauses.

I think a "moral clause" is a good thing for larger companies and their reputation. I also think it is sad they have to have such clauses. Why can't grown folk just act grown? Yes they should be permitted. They are there to protect the larger companies and their image. For example Tiger Woods cheating on his spouse, his actions do nothing to help the company's image. If the company didn't have the moral clause it would look like they condemned what Tiger Woods was doing. A subject that comes to mind for me for the Moral Clause would be the Ray Rice case. Ray Rice was the running back for the Baltimore Ravens until 2014, when he beat his fiance in an elevator and it was all caught on camera. Rice was released by the Ravens and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. To me this should have happened because had they kept him on it would show that the NFL supports their athletes in all their behavior.