Statute of Frauds: Sufficiency of Writings

Key Concepts

The statute of frauds requires a contract to be evidenced by a writing, not necessarily be in writing itself.
A writing must satisfy the statute to allow proof of a contract's existence.

Background:
- Nate Crabtree was in employment discussions with Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation.
- He left the company when terms of the agreement were not met.
- Elizabeth Arden denied a two-year employment agreement existed.
- The statute of frauds applied since the two-year agreement could not be performed within one year.

Initial Memorandum
- Created by Arden's secretary on September 2, 1947.
- Details salary and employment terms labeled 'employment agreement with Nate Crabtree.'
Payroll Change Card
- Prepared on September 30, 1947, effective October 22.
- Included salary terms, job classification, and initials of an authorized representative (RPJ).
Second Payroll Change Card
- Prepared by the comptroller after six months.
- Noted salary increase terms and included comptroller's signature.

None of these writings were signed by Crabtree, yet they collectively satisfied the statute.

Restatement Section 132:
- Multiple writings can satisfy the statute if they relate to the same transaction and include a signature by an authorized representative.
Restatement Section 133:
- A signed writing not intended as a contract memorandum can satisfy the statute unless related to marriage.
Restatement Section 134:
- A signature can be any symbol intended to authenticate a writing.
Restatement Section 135:
- Memorandum must be signed by all parties; otherwise, enforceable only against the signers.

Crabtree could use these writings against Elizabeth Arden, but not vice versa.
In disputes involving the statute of frauds, identify which party the writings are used against.