Legal Opinion

Kreuzburg v. Computer Sciences Corp.

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided April 16, 1987No. Civ. 85-5580PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BARRY, District Judge.

The law has always been reluctant to enforce oral promises because so often what the promisee hears differs from the intent of the promisor. The Statute of Frauds, codified in New Jersey at N.J.S.A. 25:1-5, bars enforcement of certain promises unless they are in writing. Moreover, even in cases not controlled by the Statute of Frauds, the courts of New Jersey have enforced oral contracts only when there is clear and convincing evidence of the specific promise made and that promise encompassed all of the terms necessary to its enforcement. Woolley v. Hoffman-La…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  2. Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  3. Savarese v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
  4. Cauco v. GalanteSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
  5. Deevy v. PorterSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Conopco, Inc. v. McCreadieDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
  2. Vanguard Telecommunications, Inc. v. Southern New England Telephone Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API