Farash v. Sykes Datatronics, Inc.
59 N.Y.2d 500, 465 N.Y.S.2d 917, 452 N.E.2d 1245 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, a party who performs work in reliance on that agreement may recover the fair value of their performance under a quasi-contract theory, even if the other party received no direct benefit from the work.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a building owner, and defendant, a potential lessee, entered into oral negotiations for the lease of plaintiff's building.
- As part of the negotiations, defendant orally requested that plaintiff complete renovations and make certain modifications to the building.
- Defendant stressed that the work needed to be done on an expedited basis.
- In reliance on defendant's oral promises and requests, plaintiff performed the work, providing labor and materials for the renovations.
- Defendant never signed a formal written lease agreement with plaintiff.
- Defendant never occupied the building.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant in a trial court, pleading three causes of action.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court denied defendant's motion.
- Defendant, as the appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, dismissing the complaint.
- Plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, New York'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 the Statute of Frauds bar a cause of action seeking to recover the value of work performed in reliance on an oral promise to enter into a lease, even when the underlying oral agreement is unenforceable and the defendant received no direct benefit?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
No. The Statute of Frauds does not bar a cause of action seeking recovery for the value of work performed in reliance on an unenforceable oral agreement. While the Statute of Frauds bars actions to enforce an oral lease for a term longer than one year or an oral agreement to enter into such a lease, a claim seeking compensation for work performed in reliance on such a promise is distinct. This claim is not an attempt to enforce the void contract, but is brought in disaffirmance of it under a theory of quasi-contract. Recovery is permitted for efforts that were to the plaintiff's detriment and placed him in a worse position, regardless of whether the defendant received a tangible benefit. This principle, whether termed 'restitution' or recovery for 'reliance,' allows a promisee who partially performs at a promisor's request to recover the fair and reasonable value of the performance rendered.
Dissenting - Judge Jasen
Yes. The Statute of Frauds should bar this cause of action because it is merely a disguised attempt to recover damages for the breach of an unenforceable oral agreement to enter into a lease. A claim in quasi-contract requires that the defendant be unjustly enriched, but here the defendant received no benefit whatsoever from the plaintiff's renovations to his own building. The majority is implicitly creating a cause of action based on promissory estoppel, a theory that was not pleaded or argued by the parties. A sophisticated businessperson like the plaintiff should have protected his interests by obtaining a written contract before undertaking extensive renovations, and the court should not create a novel exception to the Statute of Frauds to rescue him from his failure to do so.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the remedies available when a contract is voided by the Statute of Frauds. It establishes that a party's reliance interest can be protected through a quasi-contract claim even in the absence of unjust enrichment to the other party. By shifting the focus from the defendant's benefit to the plaintiff's detriment, the court broadened the scope of quasi-contractual recovery in New York. This ruling aligns state law more closely with the modern view expressed in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which recognizes recovery for expenditures made in reliance on a promise, and it creates an important equitable exception to the sometimes harsh application of the Statute of Frauds.
