Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation

110 N.E.2d 551 (N.Y. 1953)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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.