Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
No reporter information provided (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Multiple documents, including signed and unsigned writings, may be read together to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, provided they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction and at least one writing is signed by the party to be charged. Parol evidence is admissible to connect the documents and establish the defendant's assent to the unsigned writings.
Facts:
- Nate Crabtree negotiated with Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation for a position as sales manager, insisting on a definite term contract because he was leaving a secure job.
- During a meeting, the corporation's president, Miss Arden, offered Crabtree a two-year contract with a specified escalating salary structure.
- Miss Arden’s secretary created an unsigned memorandum on a telephone order blank that outlined the salary terms and included the notation '[2 years to make good]'.
- After Crabtree accepted the offer and began working, a 'pay-roll change' card was created and initialed by the company's general manager, Mr. Johns, specifying Crabtree's name, position, and salary structure, but not the duration.
- Crabtree received his first scheduled salary increase after six months.
- When the second scheduled increase was due after one year, the company's comptroller prepared another payroll card noting a 'Salary increase ... per contractual arrangements with Miss Arden', but Miss Arden refused to approve it.
- After discussions to resolve the salary issue failed, Crabtree left the company's employ.
Procedural Posture:
- Nate Crabtree (plaintiff) sued Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (defendant) for breach of contract in the New York trial court.
- The trial court found that a two-year employment contract existed and was enforceable, awarding damages to Crabtree.
- Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (appellant) appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, with two justices dissenting.
- Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (appellant) then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a combination of signed and unsigned writings, which collectively contain all the essential terms of an employment agreement but do not explicitly refer to each other, satisfy the Statute of Frauds when parol evidence demonstrates they relate to the same transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuld, J.
Yes. A combination of signed and unsigned writings can satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The court definitively adopts the rule that signed and unsigned writings may be read together, provided they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction. The statute does not require that the signed writing must explicitly refer to the unsigned writing. Parol evidence is admissible to connect the separate documents and to show that the party to be charged assented to the contents of the unsigned document. In this case, the unsigned office memorandum and the two signed payroll cards all refer on their face to the same transaction involving Crabtree's employment. The phrase '2 years to make good' in the unsigned memorandum, when read in the context of the negotiations, clearly denotes a definite two-year term of employment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly liberalized the application of the Statute of Frauds in New York by formally adopting the 'same subject matter or transaction' test for combining multiple documents. It moved away from the stricter, more traditional rule that required an express reference in a signed writing to an unsigned one. This ruling better reflects modern business practices, where agreements are often memorialized across a series of informal communications rather than a single, integrated document. It prioritizes enforcing the actual intent of the parties over a rigid, literal interpretation of the statute, thereby reducing the statute's potential to be used as a tool to evade legitimate obligations.
Unlock the full brief for Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.