Top Law Schools

Can someone explain the " can't be performed within a year of K's making" and give an example, please?

July 10, 2011 - A contracts with B to provide closed captioning for an event scheduled for August 12, 2012.

If it's physically possible--like literally not against the laws of physics--to complete the contract in a year, then it doesn't fall under the SOF. Contracting to industrialize Somalia could theoretically be done 1 year, even though it would probably take a billion, so no SOF issue. On the other hand, a 2-year employment contract cannot conceivably be completed in 1 year, so it falls under the SOF.

that's where i'm getting confused though. So let's say A hires B on Dec 20, 2011 and they are to begin work on Jan 2, 2012 and their contract is to expire on Jan 2, 2013. I understand the agreement starts on Dec 20, but so what? does that mean on Dec 20th next year B can just stop working because a year has been completed?

RR320 wrote:that's where i'm getting confused though. So let's say A hires B on Dec 20, 2011 and they are to begin work on Jan 2, 2012 and their contract is to expire on Jan 2, 2013. I understand the agreement starts on Dec 20, but so what? does that mean on Dec 20th next year B can just stop working because a year has been completed?

It means that the contract would be unenforceable under the SoF. So if B stops working on Dec. 20, then A would recover under promissory estoppel rather than, say, expectation damages under the contract.

If you're looking for some logical reason to justify the one year requirement, there really isn't one. It doesn't make a ton of sense in terms of which contracts fall within it, which is why you see some courts bending over backwards to find that the SoF doesn't apply.

RR320 wrote:that's where i'm getting confused though. So let's say A hires B on Dec 20, 2011 and they are to begin work on Jan 2, 2012 and their contract is to expire on Jan 2, 2013. I understand the agreement starts on Dec 20, but so what? does that mean on Dec 20th next year B can just stop working because a year has been completed?

I think you're misunderstanding the effect of the SOF. SOF is a preliminary hurdle when attempting to prove the existence of a contract in court. What is relevant is that the contract was originally for 1+ years--it's irrelevant (for SOF calculation purposes) when the breach occurs. You measure from the outset whether the K required 1+ years or not. If so, then SOF applies and you need to show a writing otherwise the K is per se unenforceable; if not, then you can still attempt enforce by proving the existence of an oral K.