Florida Supreme Court Case: Statute of Frauds Test Revisited

Can you enforce an oral contract on someone who has recently   passed away? Do you know how toenforce and oral agreement? The first step may be considering whether or not the agreement is subject to the statute of frauds. A recent case out of the Supreme Court of Florida highlights one major facet of the statute of frauds- the one year rule. Did you know an oral contract that cannot be performed in under a year is invalid and unenforceable? The rule is not as harsh it may at first seem though, take a look at what happened in a case that was filed a few days ago on May 28, 2015.

The Statute of Frauds

• One thing every state has with relatively little variation is a statute of frauds.
• The statute tells people what types of agreements have to be in writing.
• Did you know that an oral agreement is under specific circumstances legally enforceable?
• So why write it down?
• For one thing proving your case will be easier.
• For another your West Palm Beach oral contract may be invalid under the statute of frauds.
• For example if your contract dealt with real property (real estate, land) then it has to be in writing.
• Another common folly people make is for contracts that take more than one year to complete; these again, have to be written down.
• Who decides how long it takes for a contract to be performed?
• Sometimes it is clear on the face of the agreement for example if we agree that you will clean my windows for the next thirteen months, it will clearly take over a year to complete.
• This is not a hard question for the court.
• What if I ask you to clean my car three hundred and sixty six times (366) on a non leap year?
• Sure most people do not wash a car more than once daily but does that mean this contract could not be completed in a year?
• The Supreme Court would likely say this agreement is valid under the statute of frauds, do you want to know why?
• Check out this recent case.

Browning v. Poirier

• A former romantic partner of a lottery winner brought an action against the winner seeking a share of lottery proceeds.
• The former partner alleged there was an oral contract and the lower court decided that since it could not have been completed in a year the claim fails under the statute of frauds.
• The Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that it was possible the contract could have been performed in a year so the statute had no bearing.
• Do you agree?
• What should be the test whether something is physically possible or practically possible? 

Want to learn even more?

Check out this recent Florida Supreme Court Case by clicking here.