D & N Boening, Inc. v. Kirsch Beverages, Inc.
472 N.E.2d 992, 63 N.Y.2d 449, 483 N.Y.S.2d 164 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement of indefinite duration is barred by the Statute of Frauds' one-year provision if its terms allow for termination within one year only through a breach by one of the parties, as a breach does not constitute performance or an alternative mode of completing the agreement.
Facts:
- In 1955, Minck Beverages, the prime distributor of “Yoo-Hoo” chocolate beverage, entered into a verbal agreement with Joseph Boening and his sons (plaintiff's predecessors).
- Under this agreement, the Boenings were granted exclusive subdistribution rights for “Yoo-Hoo” beverage in Nassau County and a portion of Suffolk County.
- The Boenings were required to cease distribution of a competitor’s chocolate drink, and in return, their subdistributorship was to be exclusive and would continue “for as long as they satisfactorily distributed the product, exerted their best efforts and acted in good faith.”
- In 1963, American Beverage Corp. (American) acquired the prime “Yoo-Hoo” franchise from Minck and continued the exclusive subdistributorship agreement with plaintiff’s predecessors.
- After Joseph Boening’s death in 1965, his sons continued the business as D & N Boening, Inc. (plaintiff) and requested American to reduce the exclusive franchise arrangement to writing, which American refused, but verbally agreed to continue the prior arrangement on the condition that plaintiff’s performance remained satisfactory.
- In 1982, Kirsch Beverages, Inc. (Kirsch) purchased American, assuming American’s obligations to D & N Boening, Inc.
- Later in 1982, Kirsch informed D & N Boening, Inc. that it was terminating the subdistributorship agreement and would henceforth distribute “Yoo-Hoo” itself.
Procedural Posture:
- D & N Boening, Inc. instituted an action against American Beverage Corp. and Kirsch Beverages, Inc. in Special Term (the trial court) seeking damages for breach of contract or, in the alternative, for specific performance.
- Defendants (American and Kirsch) made separate motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 5), arguing the agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds in that section 5-701 (subd a, par 1) of the General Obligations Law requires all agreements to be in writing which cannot be performed within one year from the date of its making.
- Special Term denied the motions, holding that the oral agreement by its terms was terminable by defendants at any time and, hence, did not necessarily extend beyond one year and was not within the ambit of the Statute.
- The Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court) unanimously reversed Special Term's decision, holding instead that the agreement could not actually be performed within one year but could only be terminated by a breach, and consequently found the agreement to be governed by the Statute of Frauds and void because unwritten.
- D & N Boening, Inc. (appellant) appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an oral exclusive subdistributorship agreement of indefinite duration, which is terminable within one year only by a party's breach of its conditions, barred by the Statute of Frauds' one-year provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
Yes, an oral exclusive subdistributorship agreement of indefinite duration, terminable within one year only by a party's breach of its conditions, is barred by the Statute of Frauds' one-year provision. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, holding that the oral agreement fell within the Statute of Frauds and was void because it was unwritten. The Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [subd a, par 1]) requires agreements that cannot be performed within one year to be in writing. The court maintains a narrow interpretation of this provision, applying it only to contracts that, by their very terms, have absolutely no possibility of full performance within one year. The agreement explicitly stated it would continue "for as long as [plaintiff and its predecessors] satisfactorily distributed the product, exerted their best efforts and acted in good faith." The court reasoned that the sole limitation on the agreement’s duration was the plaintiff's performance, and termination within the first year could only occur upon the plaintiff's failure to perform, which constitutes a breach. A breach is not equated with an option to discontinue or cancel, which would constitute an alternative performance of the agreement. Unlike agreements with explicit contractual options to terminate within a year, this agreement contained no such provision. Therefore, since the agreement could only end within one year through a breach, it was not "performable" within one year under the meaning of the Statute of Frauds and was void for being unwritten.
Analysis:
This case provides critical clarification on the application of the Statute of Frauds' one-year provision, particularly distinguishing between contractual options to terminate and termination due to breach. It reinforces the New York Court of Appeals' narrow interpretation of the Statute of Frauds, emphasizing that for an oral agreement of indefinite duration to be valid, it must, by its terms, be capable of full performance within one year, with 'performance' explicitly excluding termination by breach. The decision serves as a significant precedent for drafting long-term contracts, highlighting the necessity of explicit, non-breach-based termination clauses to avoid the writing requirement. Future cases will rely on this precedent to analyze whether a contract's potential early cessation constitutes a form of performance or merely a consequence of breach when determining its enforceability under the Statute of Frauds.
