Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractstatuteappealtrial

contractbreach of contractstatuteappealtrial

Related Cases

Venable v. Hickerson, Phelps, Kirtley & Associates, Inc., 903 S.W.2d 659, 133 Lab.Cas. P 58,233

Facts

Gerald F. Venable was employed by Bernstein–Rein Advertising, Inc. before being approached by Ken Hickerson, chairman of Hickerson Phelps, about employment. Venable began working for Hickerson Phelps on February 15, 1993, and during a meeting, Hickerson wrote handwritten notes on a notepad with the company logo, which Venable claimed constituted a two-year employment contract. Venable was later discharged after seven months of employment and filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract for both the employment agreement and a separate bonus agreement related to a merger he facilitated.

Gerald F. Venable was employed by Bernstein–Rein Advertising, Inc. before being approached by Ken Hickerson, chairman of Hickerson Phelps, about employment.

Issue

Did the handwritten note with the employer's logo constitute a valid signature for the purposes of the statute of frauds, and did the employee state a claim for breach of contract regarding the bonus agreement?

Rule

Under Missouri's statute of frauds, a contract that cannot be fully performed within one year must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. A signature can be in writing, print, or stamp, but must meet the requirements of the statute.

Under Missouri's statute of frauds, a contract that cannot be fully performed within one year must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.

Analysis

The court determined that the logo on the handwritten note did not qualify as a signature under the statute of frauds, as it did not indicate an intention to create a binding contract. The court also found that the employee's claim for promissory estoppel was not applicable since there was no signed writing to enforce. However, the court recognized that the claim for breach of the bonus agreement was sufficiently stated, as it was a separate contract that did not fall under the statute of frauds.

The court determined that the logo on the handwritten note did not qualify as a signature under the statute of frauds, as it did not indicate an intention to create a binding contract.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the employment contract claim but reversed the dismissal of the bonus claim, allowing it to proceed to trial.

Who won?

Hickerson Phelps Kirtley & Associates, Inc. prevailed on the employment contract claim because the court found the handwritten note did not satisfy the statute of frauds. However, the court allowed the bonus claim to proceed, indicating that the employer's defense was not sufficient to dismiss that claim.

Hickerson Phelps Kirtley & Associates, Inc. prevailed on the employment contract claim because the court found the handwritten note did not satisfy the statute of frauds.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Harley v. Indian Spring Land Co., 123 Conn.App. 800, 3 A.3d 992

Denney v. Lovett, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2006 WL 1915303

HM DG, Inc. v. Amini, 219 Cal.App.4th 1100, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 412, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,612, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,805

M & W Development, Inc. v. El Paso Water Co., Inc., 6 Kan.App.2d 735, 634 P.2d 166

Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 975