Question
Matchbox Construction Company was developing a parcel of land for a new golf course and condo development. George Roberts owned ten percent of matchbox's stock
Matchbox Construction Company was developing a parcel of land for a new golf course and condo development. George Roberts owned ten percent of matchbox's stock and, as its attorney, was owed $25,000, for legal services rendered. Matchbox hired Francis Weemet to perform golf course design work for the project but failed to pay Weemat as agreed. Weemet removed his crew from the project and ceased all work. To secure additional financing, Matchbox needed additional engineering work done immediately.
At a conference on financing held at the offices of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe, George Roberts orally agreed to pay all of Matchbox's bills in the event of Matchbox's failure to do so. Weemet continued to perform engineering and design work but received no further payments. Because Matchbox was insolvent (broke), Weemet sued Roberts for the amounts that was due from Matchbox, Roberts contended that his promise was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The trial court rendered judgement for Roberts arguing that the Statute of Frauds applied.
What does the Statute of Frauds dictate? Should Roberts be held liable on his oral promise to pay for engineering/design work?
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started