Comments

Oral Argument Preview: Can a General Informational Brochure, an Application to Take a Test, and Payment of a Fee Constitute a Written Contract? Rayess v. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. — 2 Comments

  1. Fifteen years later? He has clear and concise documentation and perfect, corrabable memory after fifteen years? He needs to man up and take his lumps.

  2. Yeah, his delay is not really justifiable, but that is not what the Court will consider.

    We know a contract need not address every term in order to be enforceable. The UCC supplies omitted terms, and provisions of law are deemed incorporated into a contract even though they were not referenced by the parties.

    Keep in mind that RC 2305.06 does not apply only to written contracts, it also applies to agreements and promises in writing. This language suggests a slightly looser standard than that argued by the testing agency.

    We must look at the purpose behind the longer SOL for written contracts. My vague recollection is that the availability of evidence as to the terms of a contract is one of the greatest concerns. And it seems that if Rayess is seeking to enforce a written promise (the language contained in the application and brochure), the evidentiary concern is eliminated.

    Let’s think of it more simply: Rayess either accepted the offer of the agency (as contained in the brochure) by applying to take the test, or the agency accepted his offer to take the test by cashing his check and allowing him to sit for the exam. Either way, we have writings that prove a contractual relationship. The Court may well have to rule whether all of the documents form the agreement. If it hold that the brochure is not part of the agreement, he probably loses.