TORTS - ACTION IN DECEIT FOR PROMISE MADE WITH NO INTENT TO PERFORM - EFFECT OF UNENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACT UNDER STATUTE OF FRAUDS
Newman, Fred C.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Most recently cited by1
- 1947American, Inc. v. Bishop Wash.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Undertaking to state a cause of action sounding in tort, plaintiff alleged that defendant never intended to perform an oral contract for certain manufacturing and selling rights, but that, on the contrary, defendant's fraudulent purpose was to reap the benefits of plaintiff's investigation as to the value of the said manufacturing and selling rights without cost to defendant. Plaintiff, in reliance upon the oral contract, incurred expenses in connection with his investigation as to the value of the said selling rights and in preparation to take advantage of his contract. The contract itself was unenforceable because it was within the statute of frauds. Held, plaintiff cannot recover in tort; to enforce liability would be to evade the statute of frauds.
Cassidy v. Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, 285 Mich. 426, 280 N. W. 814 (1938).