Question 31

The contract is unenforceable in a court of law.

The agreement between the property manager and the owner is unenforceable because it lacks a written form and does not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds, which typically necessitates certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable.

A) voidable because the owner was not of sound mind.

This option is incorrect because the scenario does not provide sufficient evidence that the owner was not of sound mind at the time of the agreement. While being in drug rehabilitation may raise concerns about the owner's capacity, it does not automatically render the contract voidable without clear evidence of incapacity.

B) void because the contract was not written.

This option is partially correct but does not fully capture the nature of the agreement. While the absence of a written contract typically leads to enforceability issues, the term "void" suggests that the contract has no legal effect at all, which is not the case here; it remains unenforceable rather than void.

C) unenforceable in a court of law.

This option accurately reflects the legal standing of the contract. Since the agreement was made orally and involves managing real estate, it falls under the statute of frauds, which requires such agreements to be in writing to be enforceable in court.

D) enforceable under the statute of frauds.

This option is incorrect as it directly contradicts the requirements of the statute of frauds. Given that the contract was not written, it cannot be considered enforceable under this legal principle.

Conclusion

The correct answer is C because the oral agreement does not satisfy the statute of frauds, which mandates written contracts for real estate management agreements. All other options fail to accurately describe the enforceability of the contract, either mischaracterizing the legal implications or inaccurately assessing the owner’s capacity. Thus, the contract remains unenforceable in a court of law.