McIntosh v. Murphy case brief

McIntosh v. Murphy; (Sup Ct of HI, 1970); CB 327; Notes 40

Reliance on oral K; Ct employs promissory estoppel

• Facts: Oral agreement for employment. P moves from LA to Hawaii in substantial reliance of employment K. P fired several months into employment. P sues and seeks damages for breach of K. D argues statute of frauds-not in writing-comes under the statute of frauds b/c requires more than a year to perform-contract would take 367 days to complete-contract began w/acceptance-D also argues P was hired as a probationary employee(“we tried you, and did not like you”-a factual dispute-no writing to resolve this factual dispute)
• Issue: Oral agreement – does it violate the SoF?
• Holding: Jury finds for P -contract didn’t start till the first day of work so exactly a year and not within the statute of frauds and also Sundays don’t count for the year-ct. is finding convenient way to work around the statute of frauds. Ct. applies § 90 Promissory Estoppel to avoid injustice.
• Commentary: exception to the at-will rule: unlike “permanent employment,” employment for a specified period is an enforceable agreement for that period of time (as long as there isn’t cause to terminate)