the case of Sawyer v. Mills is presented to teach the "one year rule" of the Statute of Frauds. Its a very interesting case from a number of standpoints:

First, note that the jury originally found in favor of Sawyer, the paralegal trying to collect the $1,000,000 from her attorney boss. Thus, she original won the case, but Mills' attorney filed what is called a Motion for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (or "JNOV" for short). The Motion for the JNOV is a legal procedure wherein the losing party can request the judge to reverse the decision of the jury for legal or other reasons. In this case, the judge granted Mills' a JNOV; and thus, despite originally winning the case, the judge reversed the judgment and found in favor of Mills. How do you think Sawyer felt - she was a millionaire for a short time, only to have it snatched away by a judge!

The second interesting thing about this case is that Sawyer actually had a tape recording of Mills agreeing to pay the $1,000,000. But this tape also had the parties' agreement that the money would be paid over 107 months; and hence longer than one year, which brought the Statute of Frauds into play. Thus, the tape actually hurt Sawyer's case. I surmise that Sawyer's attorney may have been better off not entering the tape into evidence; and just establish the oral contract to pay the $1,000,000 based on the parties' testimony. This would be a tough strategy decision for Sawyer's attorney; and its easy to second guess the attorney now that we have the outcome. But, it does show some of the strategic decisions attorneys need to make.

Overall, this case shows how harsh the Statute of Frauds can be - so be forewarned! link to the case: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1325888.html

For this Question

1. provide your overall thoughts on the case. Do you agree with the final outcome of the case, and the judge's decision that the "law is the law" and there is no "wiggle room" to apply the Statute of Frauds in a manner to ensure equity and justice?

2. What else do you think was going on here? Speculate a bit - maybe Sawyer was not "liked" by the court. If you feel "sorry" for Sawyer, would your sediments change if you found out she was already paid $5,000,000 and she was trying to collect an extra $1,000,000.