Issue
The author of this essay addresses the legal issue that arose between Facebook and Eduardo Pintor. Facebook made an oral contract with a world-famous mural painter. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder, and president of Facebook, then terminated this contract before its execution. It is important to note that after the conclusion of the contract and before its termination by Zuckerberg, Pintor did not accept any other orders because of a deal of such magnitude.
Rule
It is safe to say that this case falls under the legal force of the Statute of Frauds. However, the question is whether the Statute of Frauds stops Pintor from enforcing his contract with Facebook. The author of this paper thinks the answer is yes, it does stop. Sections of the Statute of Frauds that should be considered in this case are the oral contract and Frustration of Purpose.
Application
Both parties entered into an oral contract. According to “California’s statute of frauds, California Civil Code § 1624, generally requires that contracts which sell… stipulate performance or authorize another’s performance in the distant future must be written to be valid” (Wex Definitions Team). Zuckerberg’s decision can be considered here as a later and unforeseen event, which makes its termination due to the Frustration of Purpose (“Frustration of Purpose”). Therefore, Facebook had a legal reason to terminate this oral contract.
Conclusion
As can be seen, Pintor has no legal reasons and cannot enforce his contract with Facebook. The author of this work also proved that Facebook and Zuckerberg, in particular, had a legal prerequisite for terminating the contract. The only sufficient evidence that Pintor can use is evidence of the board of directors.
Works Cited
“Frustration of Purpose.” Legal Information Institute, Web.
Wex Definitions Team. “oral contract.” Legal Information Institute, 2020, Web.