Professional Bull Riders, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc. case brief summary
113 P.3d 757 (Colo. 2005)
SYNOPSIS:The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified the question of whether, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-10-112(1)(a), an oral agreement was void when it contemplated performance for a definite period of more than one year but allowed the party to be charged an option to terminate it by a certain date less than a year from the making of the agreement and when the party to be charged had not exercised that option to terminate.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff event organizer prepared a written agreement to provide for defendant sponsor's sponsorship. By its own terms, the sponsorship agreement was to run for two seasons, unless sooner terminated as contemplated by the agreement itself. The sponsor never signed the agreement. However, the organizer alleged that the sponsor accepted its terms and that, as a result, the parties entered into an oral agreement mirroring the written terms. The district court reasoned that the purported oral contract provided for a term of two years and was thus unenforceable.
HOLDING:
-On appeal, the court disagreed.
-It concluded that where the terms of an agreement could fairly and reasonably be interpreted to define alternate obligations, one or more of which could be performed within one year, the agreement in question could be fairly and reasonably interpreted such that it may be performed within one year.
ANALYSIS:
The one-year provision therefore did not bring such an agreement within the statute of frauds. The court noted that an interpretation of the election as defining alternate obligations was not only fair and reasonable, it was clear.
OUTCOME: The court answered the certified question in the negative.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
113 P.3d 757 (Colo. 2005)
SYNOPSIS:The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified the question of whether, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-10-112(1)(a), an oral agreement was void when it contemplated performance for a definite period of more than one year but allowed the party to be charged an option to terminate it by a certain date less than a year from the making of the agreement and when the party to be charged had not exercised that option to terminate.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff event organizer prepared a written agreement to provide for defendant sponsor's sponsorship. By its own terms, the sponsorship agreement was to run for two seasons, unless sooner terminated as contemplated by the agreement itself. The sponsor never signed the agreement. However, the organizer alleged that the sponsor accepted its terms and that, as a result, the parties entered into an oral agreement mirroring the written terms. The district court reasoned that the purported oral contract provided for a term of two years and was thus unenforceable.
HOLDING:
-On appeal, the court disagreed.
-It concluded that where the terms of an agreement could fairly and reasonably be interpreted to define alternate obligations, one or more of which could be performed within one year, the agreement in question could be fairly and reasonably interpreted such that it may be performed within one year.
ANALYSIS:
The one-year provision therefore did not bring such an agreement within the statute of frauds. The court noted that an interpretation of the election as defining alternate obligations was not only fair and reasonable, it was clear.
OUTCOME: The court answered the certified question in the negative.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment