Lonnie and pamela have been negotiating a contract over the phone for a prime piece of property. pamela believes that they have a contract due to all of lonnie’s assertions and begins to clear the trees and brush. if lonnie tries to indicate that there is not a contract because all the assertions are oral, pamela could use the exception to prove there is in fact a contract.

A contract, to be valid valid, must have determined the following requirements:

The consent of the contracting parties.

A specific object

A foundation or cause thereof.

The form of the contract, on the other hand, is sometimes only an essential requirement for that existence (principle of freedom of form). The law will expressly establish supposed stories; for example: contracts with real rights over real estate (sale of a flat, mortgage ...), marriage certificates (always in public deed), powers for lawsuits, etc.  

The consent in the contracts

This occurs when the encounter between the offer and the acceptance of the contract occurs, as long as the contractors are clear they are the object and the cause of the contract. In this regard, let's analyze what to analyze two exceptional assumptions: mail and internet contracts. In the former, those held by letter, there is no consent until the offeror knows the acceptance or until, being able to know it, decide not to do so, in the absence of good contractual faith. Let's look at an example: if the one who made the offer refuses to open the letter that presumably will contain the acceptance, it is understood that there is mutual consent to conclude the contract.

probably 3 since archeologists and historians don’t understand there writing.