How Did Henry Correct In His Claim?

A)
1. This case is about a contact of sale and purchase. Henry had a written contract for purchasing a guitar. The seller was John. After the terms got written, John orally amended the purchase price. Henry claimed that in accordance with the Equal Dignity Rules, this amendment was required in writing.
2. The law applicable to the facts is the “Statue of fraud.” The Statue of fraud required everything to be in written form within a contract of sales. Since, it was a contract of sale between Henry and John, thus, the law, “statue of fraud” applies over this case.
3. The precise question or issue of the case, which is supposed to be answered is that “was Henry Correct in his claim?” because, mainly the case revolves around this question that he claim made by Henry was either correct or not and either the law really needs such modifications to be made in written form.
4.

The main issue or summarized question in this case is that whether the painter has a right to receive payment, if yes then how much? And how would the painter explain to the court that he has the right to receive payment.
4. Since nonperformance or partial performance results in the discharge of contract, whereas, the painter had painted the house and only left the porch which costs hardly $ 300, whereas, the homeowner cut $ 1500 from his payment. The painter has a right to receive the remaining payment for the work done, which is $ 1200 (1500 – 300).
5. To conclude, Painter can claim under the “Actual or Compensatory damage clause in the Damages in Contract Law” theory. Which shows that if the painter has not painted the house fully, he is supposed to pay the actual damages to the home owner, which are only $ 300 because only one portion worth $ 300 has not been painted. The homeowner is not being justifiable as he is refusing to pay a major portion of the painter’s payment, which is unfair. There should only be the permission to the homeowner to not to pay $ 300 and to pay rest of the amount.