Statute of Frauds Forum
-
RR320

- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:07 pm
Statute of Frauds
Can someone explain the " can't be performed within a year of K's making" and give an example, please?
- AlexanderSupertramp

- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm
Re: Statute of Frauds
July 10, 2011 - A contracts with B to provide closed captioning for an event scheduled for August 12, 2012.
-
zomginternets

- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Statute of Frauds
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.
-
RR320

- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:07 pm
Re: Statute of Frauds
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?
- Magnolia

- Posts: 547
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:06 pm
Re: Statute of Frauds
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.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?
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.
-
zomginternets

- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Statute of Frauds
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login