Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
29. Would the statute of frauds be an effective defense for the employer in that action?
The applicant showed up for and began work on January 2. Two weeks later, the employer discharged her without cause. The applicant has sued for breach of contract.
On December 2, an employer called a job applicant who had interviewed and offered her a position paying $65,000 per year. The employer told the applicant that she could accept the offer by showing up for work on January 2 and that the term of employment would be one year from when she started.
This is a last question in category
« Go to questions from category Defenses to EnforceabilityComments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Full performance of one party's obligations under an oral agreement removes the statute of frauds as a defense, but here there was only partial performance by the applicant.
C is incorrect. The agreement could have been performed according to its terms within a year from its making on January 2.
D is incorrect. The amount of money involved is irrelevant to the application of the common law statute of frauds. Here, the fact that the contract could be fully performed within a year exempts it from the statute of frauds.