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.
Can an employee avoid the statute of frauds based solely upon his detrimental reliance on an employer's oral promise of continued employment? Jurisdictions have divided on this question. See Annotation, 'Action By Employee In Reliance On Employment Contract Which Violates Statute Of Frauds As Rendering Contract Enforceable,' 54 A.L.R.3d 715 at §§ 11-13 (1974); 3 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 533A (3d ed. 1960); 2 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 459 (1950 & Supp. 1990).
Some have permitted avoidance based on theories of promissory estoppel, McIntosh v. Murphy, 469 P.2d 177, 181 (Haw. 1970), equitable estoppel, Pursell v. Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc., 205 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973), or part performance, Stevens v. Good Samaritan Hosp. and Medical Center, 504 P.2d 749, 752 (Or. 1972). Others have rejected such an avoidance as contrary to the policy of the statute, Tannenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hosp., 173 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 1965), or as unsupported by sufficient evidence to verify the oral promise, Hudson v. Venture Industries, Inc., 252 S.E.2d 606, 608 (Ga. 1979). Some contend they can avoid the statute of frauds under the promissory estoppel theory ...
