Frannie Bell Case Study

736 Words 3 Pages
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…
J. Mcgrath Comp., A Corp. v. Marchant, 117 Md. 472; 83 A. 912 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1912), the parties entered into an oral contract of employment. As a part of the contract, Marchant was to work for H.J Mcgrath Comp., A Corp., if the business lasted that long. The employer promised to pay Marchant $25.00 per week for the first six months and $20.00 for the remaining six months, if the business is still going. After a year, Marchant was discharged from the business and H.J Mcgrath Comp., A Corp., refused to pay the dues owed to Marchant under the contract. The court found that the contract did not come within the statute of frauds because the oral contract was for one year if the business lasted that long, which it did. The court concluded that the contract could have been fulfilled within a

Related Documents

Related Topics