Cruz 1

Life Skills

Professor: Hiram A. Paz

Business Law

Bethania Cruz

Florida National University

November 19, 2019

 Cruz 2

First Case –

234 N.J. Super. 526 (1989)

560 A.2d 1353

JEWISH FEDERATION OF CENTRAL NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF,

v.
GERSON BARONDESS, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Special Civil Part, Union County.

Decided March 1, 1989.

“Much of (the) litigation (regarding the statute of frauds) comes from the attempt to enforce
honestly made contracts against dishonest parties who choose to welsh on their agreements
by hiding behind a Statute which was originally designed to prevent "Frauds and Perjuries,"
and which, over the years, has become warped and tested by misconception and
misapplication. [3 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts, Sec. 448 (3 ed.
1957).]”

“Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,000.00.”

 Cruz 3

Second Case –

50 N.J. 192 (1967)

234 A.2d 65

IN THE MATTER OF GERALDINE R. DODGE, AN ALLEGED MENTAL

INCOMPETENT.
ELMIRA COLLEGE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
FIDELITY UNION TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., AS SUBSTITUTED
GUARDIANS, ETC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued February 21 and March 6, 1967.

Decided June 20, 1967.

“I do feel, however, that Mr. McGraw had a positive obligation to fully explain to Mrs.
Dodge the meaning and intended effect, as far as the College was concerned, of the revision
in the letter, even if he felt it did no more than put in legal terminology his conception of
the intent of the original draft. While I do not think he ought to be charged with fraud in not
doing so, nonetheless, there was an equitable duty to be absolutely certain, in view of the
change in language, that Mrs. Dodge fully understood and acquiesced in the legal effect of
what she was being asked to sign. The failure in this respect, especially in the light of the
unclear and confusing language of the letter as a whole, to which I have previously
adverted, leads to the conclusion that the purported gift of the remainder interest should not
be enforced. If the rationale of decision is to be on a factual approach, I do not think a
reasoned evaluation of all the evidence fairly justifies condemnation beyond that set forth
in this paragraph.”

 “I concur in the reversal of the trial court's judgment and in the direction for the entry of
judgment in defendants' favor.”
 Cruz 4

Third Case –

11 Misc.2d 427 (1958)

In the Matter of The Estate of Marshall Field, Deceased.

Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County.

April 3, 1958.

“I find that the decedent made the pledge in question, made partial payments thereunder
and that the donee, in reliance upon the promise of the decedent-donor, as well as upon the
promises of other donors, incurred certain obligations. Accordingly, I hold that decedent's
oral promise is valid and enforcible and that the pledge does not come within the
prohibitions of the Illinois Statute of Frauds and Perjuries. After deducting the partial
payments, the balance of $59,682 remains due the university from this estate.”

“Both of the foregoing claims are accordingly allowed and the executors are instructed to
pay the same.”
 Cruz 5

Conclusion

As a conclusion of those decided cases, I could observe the courts can change their

decisions, and those decisions are based, basically, in how the promised donation had been

done, and how properly and affective was it.

In our case, I assume that Supreme would decide in our favor, the details showed

about the case between FNU and the church just shows a conversation, that normal people,

as human being usually have to friends, we, one day can promise. As an example, I promise

$50 dollars to a friend, to be paid on Wednesday; I have seen that the money that I would

give as a donation to my friend, because I wanted to, I had the financial possibility to do it,

would not be possible anymore, because on Tuesdays I received an unexpected bill to be

paid.

If my friend made a plan, expecting the $50 dollars that he would receive from me,

and now he is saying that I have to pay because I promised, of course that I was expecting

to pay it too, was something that I said I would do. As good human beings, we have always

to try to accomplish our promises. But, as I said, in this example case, as in FNU’s case,

something bigger than the promise happened, the money could not be given, and if the

suppose receiver made plans before actually having the money in his/her name or power,

unfortunately it is his/her problem. The suppose donator (FNU’s CEO) might not, in this

case, be enforced of promised payment.

 Cruz 6

REFERENCES

Ashcroft, J. D., Ashcroft, K. M., & Patterson, M. A. (2017). Law for business. Australia: Cengage

Learning

Google Scholar. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Promises Broken. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-

gb/insight/promises-broken.