Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

An admission during trial that a contract was in fact made does not preclude assertion of the statute of frauds. Doyle v. Wohlrabe, supra; Holste v. Baker, 223 Minn. 321, 26 N.W. (2d) 473; Taylor v. Allen, 40 Minn. 433, 42 N.W. 292. The rule is based on the belief that it is more important that a seller not be tempted to perjure himself by falsely denying a contract than it is to give effect to his judicial declarations. This rule, first announced by the English courts a century after passage of the first statute of frauds, has been disapproved by scholars and rejected by some American courts. Trossbach v. Trossbach, 185 Md. 47, 42 A. (2d) 905; Degheri v. Carobine, 100 N.J. Eq. 493, 135 A. 518; Zlotziver v. Zlotziver, 355 Pa. 299, 49 A. (2d) 779; Stevens, Ethics and the Statute of Frauds, 37 Cornell LQ. 355; 2 Corbin, Contracts, § 498; 4 Williston, Contracts (3 ed.) § 567A. 

An admission that a contract was made certainly cannot be ignored when all other evidence submitted supports the same conclusion. See Jones v. Jones, 333 Mo. 478, 63 S.W. (2d) 146, in which ...

Register or login to access full content