In Blaustein v. Burton, which defense was argued to challenge the contract?

• A. The statute of frauds and statute of limitations.
• B. They argued there was a valid contract regardless of writing.
• C. Patents were involved in the dispute.
• D. Laches was the sole defense.

Answer: (A)

The core idea here is that a contract can be challenged and knocked out of enforceability not by what the parties said, but by procedural defenses that limit when or how such an agreement can be enforced. Two classic defenses in this area are the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations.

The statute of frauds requires certain kinds of contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. If a contract falls into one of those categories and there’s no writing (or the writing doesn’t meet the prescribed form), the contract generally cannot be enforced. In Blaustein v. Burton, arguing the contract was defeated by the statute of frauds means the defense was that the essential requirement of a written agreement wasn’t met, so the contract could not be enforced.

The statute of limitations imposes a deadline to sue for breach. If the lawsuit is filed after that period has run, the claim is barred even if a valid contract exists. Bringing this defense in Blaustein v. Burton would mean the claim was brought too late, so the contract claim cannot be pursued.

These defenses are the best fit because they directly attack enforceability on procedural grounds—writing requirements and timing—rather than disputing the substantive agreement itself. Other options either contradict the purpose of the statute of frauds (arguing there is a valid contract regardless of writing), involve an unrelated issue (patents), or rely on a different defense (like laches) that isn’t the one described in this context.