Question Presented: Whether the statute of frauds bars Frannie Bell from recovering on the oral contract that the parties entered even though the contract lasted more than one year.
Short Answer: The statute of frauds does not bar Frannie Bell from recovering on the oral contract that the parties entered into because under the contract Frannie Bell was to receive commission on all contracts for Hannah’s Berries and any renewal contracts for Hannah’s Berries. Due to this the statute of frauds will not bar Frannie Bell even though the contract was oral because the statute of frauds does not apply if the contract could be completed in a year. Although, the contract extended longer than a year, Frannie Bell could have quit at any time.
Applicable …show more content…
J. Mcgrath Comp., A Corp. v. Marchant, 117 Md. 472; 83 A. 912 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1912).
Statement of Facts: Fannie Bell was hired by Hannah’s Berries to sell berries. Upon hiring, Fannie Bell and Hannah’s Berries entered into an oral contract. As a part of the contract, Fannie Bell was to receive commission on all contracts for Hannah’s Berries and any renewal contracts for Hannah’s Berries. Therefore, she was to receive commission on the initial contract and the renewal contract, regardless if she handled the renewal contract or not. After three years, Fannie Bell quit her job at Hannah’s Berries and Hannah’s Berries stopped paying her the commissions on the renewal contracts for the …show more content…
Since the complaint has been filed Hannah’s Berries filed a motion for summary judgment alleging the contract is unenforceable under the statue of frauds because the contract lasted more than one year and was an oral contract. In, Home News Inc., v. Goodman, 182 Md. 585, 35 A.2d 442 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1944), the parties, Home News Inc. and Seymour P. Goodman entered into an oral contract of employment. As a part of the contract, Goodman was to receive, 20% commission on all advertising that is secured in the paper as long as the advertisers continue to place advertising in the paper. After a few years, Goodman was discharged from employment with Home News Inc. At that time, Home News Inc. stopped paying Goodman commission. When Goodman filed a complaint against Home News Inc., Home News Inc., alleged the contract is unenforceable under the statue of frauds because the contract lasted more than one year and was an oral contract. The court found that although the contract is not in writing it still is not within the statute of frauds. The court also found that the contract is not within the statute of frauds because the contract could have been completed in one year. The court awarded commission to
Short Answer: The statute of frauds does not bar Frannie Bell from recovering on the oral contract that the parties entered into because under the contract Frannie Bell was to receive commission on all contracts for Hannah’s Berries and any renewal contracts for Hannah’s Berries. Due to this the statute of frauds will not bar Frannie Bell even though the contract was oral because the statute of frauds does not apply if the contract could be completed in a year. Although, the contract extended longer than a year, Frannie Bell could have quit at any time.
Applicable …show more content…
J. Mcgrath Comp., A Corp. v. Marchant, 117 Md. 472; 83 A. 912 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1912).
Statement of Facts: Fannie Bell was hired by Hannah’s Berries to sell berries. Upon hiring, Fannie Bell and Hannah’s Berries entered into an oral contract. As a part of the contract, Fannie Bell was to receive commission on all contracts for Hannah’s Berries and any renewal contracts for Hannah’s Berries. Therefore, she was to receive commission on the initial contract and the renewal contract, regardless if she handled the renewal contract or not. After three years, Fannie Bell quit her job at Hannah’s Berries and Hannah’s Berries stopped paying her the commissions on the renewal contracts for the …show more content…
Since the complaint has been filed Hannah’s Berries filed a motion for summary judgment alleging the contract is unenforceable under the statue of frauds because the contract lasted more than one year and was an oral contract. In, Home News Inc., v. Goodman, 182 Md. 585, 35 A.2d 442 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1944), the parties, Home News Inc. and Seymour P. Goodman entered into an oral contract of employment. As a part of the contract, Goodman was to receive, 20% commission on all advertising that is secured in the paper as long as the advertisers continue to place advertising in the paper. After a few years, Goodman was discharged from employment with Home News Inc. At that time, Home News Inc. stopped paying Goodman commission. When Goodman filed a complaint against Home News Inc., Home News Inc., alleged the contract is unenforceable under the statue of frauds because the contract lasted more than one year and was an oral contract. The court found that although the contract is not in writing it still is not within the statute of frauds. The court also found that the contract is not within the statute of frauds because the contract could have been completed in one year. The court awarded commission to