Story Case

Bass. & Co., grain merchants, agreed orally to pay the plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, $500 for his threshed wheat. Later they refused to buy his wheat and assigned no lawful reason for the refusal. Mr. Weaver sued them for breach of contract. Instead of setting up the Statute of Frauds, which would have been a valid defense, since the price of the wheat was more than $50 (or ten pounds), the company pleaded that no such agreement had been made with Mr. Weaver. Mr. Weaver proved that such a contract had been made.

Should Mr. Weaver be allowed to recover?

Ruling Court Case. Britain Vs. Rossiter, Volume 11 Queen's Bench Division Reports, Page 123

Rossiter, desirous of engaging a person to work for him, conferred with Britain. They had interviews upon the subject on the 17th, 19th and 21st of April, 1877. On the 21st, which was Saturday, they came to an agreement, by which Britain was to be engaged for one year, to begin work on the following Monday, the 23rd of April. Britain, in pursuance of the terms of their oral agreement entered upon his work on the Monday as agreed upon. In this work, he continued for three months when he was discharged by Rossiter without cause. Britain then sued for wrongful dismissal.

Rossiter contended that the agreement was within that section of the statute which provided that no action may be brought upon a contract, when it cannot be performed within a year, unless the agreement be reduced to writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.

Decision

The contract was made on Saturday and, according to the contract, Britain was to commence his services on the following Monday, and to serve for a year from that day, to be paid a year from that Monday. Therefore, this contract was not to be performed within a year and falls within the Statute of Frauds.

But such a contract is not necessarily void. It is only unenforcible in a court. Had the defendant, Rossiter, not pleaded the Statute of Frauds it might have been enforced against him. The compliance with the statute is only necessary as a means of proving the contract.

Since, however, Rossiter chose to set up the statute, Britain has no remedy against him and cannot recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The purpose of the Statute of Frauds was to supply or compel the parties to a contract to procure better evidence than their conflicting oral statements. It was not the purpose of it to make the contract absolutely void. So the fact that a contract is not reduced to writing, when it should be by the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, does not render that agreement void, but renders it unenforcible only. If the person who is being sued, does not care to take the benefit of the statute, and does not set it up as a defense to an action on an unwritten agreement, within the statute, the agreement will be enforced just as if it were in writing.

In the Story Case, Mr. Weaver should be allowed to recover for the above reason. But if the contract had been illegal, the court would not have to enforce it - for example, if A promises B to kill X for $25 and does not do it, and then B sues A for breach of contract, and A, instead of pleading the illegality, pleads that he did not promise, and B proves that A did make the agreement, nevertheless the court would not enforce the contract because of the illegality. But the court will not give defendant the benefit of the Statute of Frauds unless the defendant pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense.