Stuart claimed that when he was hired by Midwest Bottling Co., the company orally offered a contract to employ him until he retired. Stuart claimed he accepted and told Midwest Bottling Co. he might not retire for 10 more years. Three years later, Midwest Bottling Co. terminated Stuart's employment. Stuart sued, claiming breach of employment contract. Midwest Bottling claimed the alleged oral contract was required by the Statute of Frauds to be in writing, because it could not be completed in one year and therefore was unenforceable. Did the contract fall within the Statute of Frauds

Question

Mattie Austin

Business

25 February, 04:23

Stuart claimed that when he was hired by Midwest Bottling Co., the company orally offered a contract to employ him until he retired. Stuart claimed he accepted and told Midwest Bottling Co. he might not retire for 10 more years. Three years later, Midwest Bottling Co. terminated Stuart's employment. Stuart sued, claiming breach of employment contract. Midwest Bottling claimed the alleged oral contract was required by the Statute of Frauds to be in writing, because it could not be completed in one year and therefore was unenforceable. Did the contract fall within the Statute of Frauds

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Abram Curtis · Answer 1

Yes it falls within the statute of fraud

Explanation:

Statute of fraud is a legal concept that requires transactions above $500 and contracts of a year or more to be in writing.

In situations where there is breach of contract it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove their was such an agreement in place. This requires the contract to be in writing.

In this scenario Stuart claimed that when he was hired by Midwest Bottling Co. he was orally offered a contract to employ him until he retired, and he orally agreed to retire after 20 years.

This contract falls under statute of frauds and should have been in writing.

So when the company breached the contract it is not enforceable because it is not in writing.