CRABTREE V. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION
110 N.E.2d 551 (N.Y. 1953)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Arden (D) appealed a judgment from the Appellate Division that affirmed a judgment of the New York Supreme Court in favor of Crabtree (P) in a breach of contract action related to an employment contract.
FACTS: P entered into preliminary negotiations with D looking toward his employment as sales manager. P requested a three-year contract at $25,000 a year. P insisted upon an agreement for a definite term. P repeated his desire for a contract for three years to Miss Elizabeth Arden, D's president. When Miss Arden finally indicated that she was prepared to offer a two-year contract based on an annual salary of $20,000 for the first six months, $25,000 for the second six months and $30,000 for the second year, plus expenses of $5,000 a year for each of those years, P replied that that offer was 'interesting'. Miss Arden thereupon had her personal secretary make a memorandum on a telephone order blank that happened to be at hand. A few days later, P 'phoned Mr. Johns and telegraphed Miss Arden; he accepted the 'invitation to join the Arden organization', and Miss Arden wired back her 'welcome'. A 'pay-roll change' card was made up and initialed by Mr. Johns, and then forwarded to the payroll department. P was to be paid as follows: 'First six months of employment $20,000. per annum Next six months of employment 25,000. per annum After one year of employment 30,000. per annum. Approved by RPJ [initialed]' P received the first scheduled increase from $20,000 to $25,000, but the further specified increase at the end of the year was not paid. Miss Arden refused to approve the increase and, after further fruitless discussion, P left and commenced this action for breach of contract. D denied the existence of any agreement to employ P for two years, and further contended that, even if one had been made, the statute of frauds barred its enforcement. The trial court found against D on both issues and awarded plaintiff damages of about $14,000. The Appellate Division, affirmed. Since the contract relied upon was not to be performed within a year, the primary question for decision is whether there was a memorandum of its terms, subscribed by D, to satisfy the statute of frauds.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
