The dairy argues that the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the oral contract because the contract was not to be performed within one year. Is the dairy correct in its assertion? Explain.

Jump to Solution
Category:

The dairy argues that the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the oral contract because the contract was not to be performed within one year. Is the dairy correct in its assertion? Explain.

0
0

Dean was hired on February 12 as a sales manager of the Co-op Dairy for a minimum period of one year with the dairy agreeing to pay his moving expenses. By February 26, Dean had signed a lease, moved his family from Oklahoma to Arizona, and reported for work. After he worked for a few days, he was fired. Dean then brought this action against the dairy for his salary for the year, less what he was paid. The dairy argues that the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the oral contract because the contract was not to be performed within one year. Is the dairy correct in its assertion? Explain.

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

In this case, Individual D was allowed to work from the commencing date, which reflects that the employment contract is performable within one year from the date of its commencement. As a result, this contract is not enforceable under the Statute of Fraud. Therefore, Individual D has the right to recover that oral contract.

Verified Answer

In this case, there is a possibility to perform the employment contract within one year. This reflects that the claim made by Dairy C is not correct. As per the Statute of Fraud, only those oral contracts are invalid that cannot be completed within one year.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.