Benedek v. Mechanical Products, Inc.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The order dismissing count 1 of the declaration should be affirmed. In count 1 plaintiff declares on an oral agreement not to be performed within a year and relies on a casual reference to it in a letter to the selective service board, as being a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds. As stated by Mr Justice BUSHNELL, this is the controlling question in the case. I hold that the memorandum is not sufficient.

There is no dispute but that the oral…