John William Costello Associates, Inc. v. Standard Metals Corp.
99 A.D.2d 227, 472 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16544 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A written offer, though not signed by the party to be charged, can become a binding agreement under the Statute of Frauds when the offeree, with full knowledge of the offer's terms, accepts the benefits of the services provided by the offeror through conduct or acquiescence.
Facts:
- On or about June 2, 1980, John William Costello Associates, Inc. (Costello) orally agreed with Standard Metals Corporation (Standard) that if Standard employed a candidate revealed by Costello, Costello would receive 30% of that candidate's total first-year compensation.
- Costello's program director, Edward Nottage, revealed the identity of George E. Smith to Standard's assistant, Mary Di Rienzo, after Di Rienzo allegedly assured him she understood and accepted the fee arrangement.
- On August 7, 1980, Costello's marketing director, Andrew Jank, sent a letter to Di Rienzo stating that Costello's fees for services would be 30% of Smith's first year's total compensation if an employment agreement was consummated with Smith.
- Di Rienzo did not deny receiving Jank's August 7, 1980 letter.
- On November 19, 1980, Standard entered into a written employment agreement with George Smith, wherein Smith was to commence employment on January 1, 1981, and receive a base compensation plus contingent bonuses based on profits from corporate acquisitions, which could not be fully determined until an indefinite period after December 31, 1981.
- On February 28, 1981, Standard's president, Boris Gresov, denied that Standard ever had an agreement to pay Costello a fee for Smith’s placement.
- Mary Di Rienzo, in an affidavit, denied ever agreeing to Costello's terms or having authority to bind Standard, but did not deny receiving the August 7, 1980 letter.
Procedural Posture:
- John William Costello Associates, Inc. (Costello) sued Standard Metals Corporation (Standard) in the Supreme Court, New York County (Special Term, a trial court), asserting claims for damages under an oral agreement and account stated.
- Standard raised three affirmative defenses, including that the complaint failed to state a claim, that the oral agreement was void under the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]), and that Costello violated employment agency licensing provisions.
- Costello moved for an order striking Standard's affirmative defenses and for summary judgment.
- Standard cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The Special Term found the oral agreement performable within a year and that Costello had violated licensing provisions but was still entitled to recover a commission.
- The Special Term struck Standard's second and third affirmative defenses.
- The Special Term denied summary judgment to both parties, finding that issues of fact remained regarding whether Standard agreed to the commission payment and whether its representative had actual or apparent authority to enter such an agreement.
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 written offer for services, not signed by the party to be charged, become a binding contract, satisfying the Statute of Frauds, if the offeree accepts the benefits of those services with full knowledge of the offer's terms, even if the full compensation calculation extends beyond one year?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, P. J.
Yes, a written offer for services, not signed by the party to be charged, can become a binding contract, satisfying the Statute of Frauds, if the offeree accepts the benefits of those services with full knowledge of the offer's terms, even if the full compensation calculation extends beyond one year. The court found that Jank's letter of August 7, 1980, constituted a written offer to Standard. Because Mary Di Rienzo, Standard's representative, did not deny receiving this letter and Standard proceeded to hire Smith, whose identity was provided by Costello, Standard accepted the benefits of Costello's services. An offer can be accepted by conduct or acquiescence, as established in precedents like Joseph v Atlantic Basin Iron Works. By this conduct, Standard assented to the terms set forth in the August 7, 1980 letter. The Statute of Frauds defense is deemed without merit because the defendant is bound by the terms of the letter agreement through its actions. The majority determined that the obligation to pay became fixed when Smith was hired, and the calculation of the exact amount of compensation, even if delayed beyond a year, does not invalidate the underlying agreement for Statute of Frauds purposes.
Dissenting - Alexander, J.
No, an alleged agreement to pay a commission, even if the benefits are accepted, does not overcome the Statute of Frauds if the agreement, by its terms, cannot be performed within one year, especially if the writing is not subscribed by the party to be charged. The dissent argued that the alleged agreement between Costello and Standard could not be performed within one year because George Smith's total compensation, including contingent bonuses, could not be ascertained until an indefinite period after December 31, 1981. The dissent emphasized that the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]) requires that an agreement not performable within a year must be in writing and 'subscribed by the party to be charged therewith'. Standard never signed the August 7, 1980 letter, and mere acceptance of services or benefits (conduct) does not satisfy this strict subscription requirement for agreements falling under the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds, as illustrated in cases like Briefstein v Rotondo Constr. Co. The dissent maintains a distinction between 'performance which fulfills the contract' and 'circumstances which defeat its purpose,' arguing that the calculation delay prevents performance within a year.
Analysis:
This case offers a significant interpretation of the Statute of Frauds, particularly concerning the 'subscribed by the party to be charged' requirement when a written offer exists but is not formally signed by the recipient. The majority's reliance on 'acceptance by conduct or acquiescence' in the face of a written offer suggests a more flexible application of the Statute of Frauds than typically understood for agreements not performable within one year. This approach could expand the circumstances under which an unsigned written offer, coupled with performance and acceptance of benefits, can form a binding contract, potentially impacting future cases involving implied contracts or quasi-contractual remedies where formal written assent is lacking. The strong dissent highlights the continuing tension between equitable principles and the strictures of statutory requirements.
