George E. MC Crillis v. American Heel Co. George E. MC Crillis v. American Heel Co.

George E. MC Crillis v. American Heel Co‪.‬

NH.43 , 155 A. 410, H. 165 (1931)(85 N)

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

If by the contract more than a year was required to perform it, the statute of frauds is a defence. A contract calling for a year of employment not to commence until a time subsequent to the date of the contract must be in writing, and there was evidence tending to show a contract with such a term. And performance in part or in full does not make an unenforceable contract enforceable. Emery v. Smith, 46 N.H. 151 ; Webster v. Blodgett, 59 N.H. 120 ; Smith v. Phillips, 69 N.H. 470. The position that the parties made subsequent oral contracts while the year of service was under way is not well taken. The most that the evidence tends to show is that the defendant agreed to have the original contract put in written form. No new contract was contemplated. At best an oral contract was orally acknowledged during its performance. It remained within the statute.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1931
2 June
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
8
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
61.8
KB

More Books by Supreme Court of New Hampshire

A. Perley Fitch Company v. Continental A. Perley Fitch Company v. Continental
1954
George W. Roberts v. Tamworth & A. George W. Roberts v. Tamworth & A.
1950
Morris Rosenblum & A. v. John F. Griffin Morris Rosenblum & A. v. John F. Griffin
1938
Roy Rudolph v. Romeo J. Lavigne Roy Rudolph v. Romeo J. Lavigne
1943
State New Hampshire v. Virginia Renfrew State New Hampshire v. Virginia Renfrew
1982
Hydraform Products Corporation v. American Hydraform Products Corporation v. American
1985