Browning v. Poirier

LAWSON, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to briefly address three flaws in the dissent’s analysis.

First, the dissent discusses the “prevailing interpretation” of this portion of the statute of frauds as if there is no other recognized interpretation. The dissent correctly states the majority rule concerning contracts of “indefinite duration” — that only those contracts which “cannot possibly be completed within a year” are barred. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 130 cmt. a (2012). “There is, however, a line of cases holding that where it…