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 |
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
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.
