Story Case

Mr. Edwards signed the following paper in consideration of the promise of the Electric Piano Company to deliver an electric piano.

I, Jonathan Edwards, promise to pay ten dollars ($10) to the Electric Piano Company in return for the promise of the Electric Piano Company to put a piano in my home on June 1st, and to pay one dollar ($1) a week thereafter for two years when title to said piano shall pass to me.

(Signed) Jonathan Edwards.

March 25th.

On June 1st, the Electric Piano Company refused to put a piano in Mr. Edwards' home and gave no good reason for the refusal. On June 6th, Edwards sued the company for breach of its contract to deliver the piano and offered to produce the above writing for proof of the contract. To this the company objected, for the reason that the writing was not signed by it. The company cited the Statute of Frauds where it is stated"no action shall be brought - unless in writing signed by the party to be charged".

Which party wins!

Ruling Court Case. Williams Vs. Robinson, Volume 73 Maine Reports, Page 186; Volume 40 American Reports, Page 352

Williams brings this written action against Robinson upon the following written contract:

"Augusta, June 8, 1880. I hereby agree to furnish M. F. Williams of New Haven, eight hundred to one thousand tons of ice, delivered on board vessels at Augusta, Maine, properly packed for a voyage to New Haven, for the sum of two dollars per ton.

Bond Brook Ice Company, J. E. Robinson, Augusta, Maine".

After having entered into the foregoing contract, Robinson failed and refused to deliver the ice as he had agreed to do. Thereupon Williams brought this action. By Robinson it was contended that this was not a binding contract, because the Statute of Frauds required that such a contract be in writing and signed by both parties.

Decision

Since this was a contract for the sale of personal property for fifty dollars or more, it was not valid unless it was in writing. However, the Statute does not require it shall be signed by both parties; but it must be signed by the party who is sought to be charged under the contract. In this action Williams is seeking to charge Robinson who has signed the contract. Therefore, the fact that it was not signed by Williams makes it no less binding upon Robinson.

Mr. Justice Virgin said in part:"At common law, mutual executory contracts for the sale and purchase of goods, wares and merchandise of whatever value, and however provable were binding and enforcible. The Statute of Frauds intervened and prescribed the kind of evidence by which alone they might be established, by entailing upon the parties certain specified classes of contracts, the disability of enforcing them so long as the essential terms remained in mere unwritten words.

The memorandum need be signed by one only of the parties - the party to be charged, so that if a mutual executory contract,valid at common law, be made, and one of the parties obtains from the other the"note or memorandum" thereof contemplated by the statute, but does not give a corresponding one, he may enforce it although the other cannot, the former having secured, while the other has not, the evidence which the statute has made indispensable to its enforcement".

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The Statute of Frauds in every section requires that the note or memorandum shall be signed by the party to be charged therewith. Thus, in a given case, it may happen that one party is bound, where he signs, and the other is not, where he does not sign. If A makes a contract with B, which contract comes within the statute, and B signs and A does not, B may be sued on this contract, but A could not be unless he was willing to waive the benefit of the statute. So it is always wise to see that both parties sign the contract. Thus, in the Story Case, Mr. Edwards would have been liable had he refused to pay for the piano. But since the company did not sign, it can not be sued, for it may set up the statute as a defense, that is, the company may contend, "No action can be brought on this agreement because it is not evidenced by a contract in writing signed by the party to be charged".