Martocci v. Greater New York Brewery, Inc.
301 N.Y. 57, 92 N.E.2d 887 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a contract that cannot be performed within one year is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a written memorandum comprised of multiple documents can collectively satisfy the statute if it sufficiently acknowledges the agreement and the consideration, even if the consideration was largely executed.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Martocci was attempting to collect a bill for services from The Greater New York Brewery, Inc. when defendant's president introduced the subject of a syrup product.
- Martocci, having a long-standing friendship with P. Lorillard Company's purchasing agent, sent a sample of defendant's syrup to Lorillard and conferred with the agent.
- Martocci and defendant orally agreed that Martocci would receive a 5% commission on all syrup sales made by defendant to P. Lorillard Company.
- On April 27, 1942, defendant sent Martocci a letter confirming their oral agreement for a 5% commission on all sales to P. Lorillard Company.
- Prior to Martocci's involvement, defendant had no business contacts with Lorillard, but began receiving orders on May 5, 1942, shortly after Lorillard's laboratory test.
- From May 1942 to November 1946, defendant made syrup sales to Lorillard totaling over $450,000.
- On August 26, 1942, defendant wrote to Martocci, explicitly referring to "our arrangements with you" and noting they refrained from using their own sales force for Lorillard to avoid paying double commissions.
- Defendant paid Martocci approximately $5,025 in commissions between September 1943 and November 1944 but ceased all payments thereafter.
Procedural Posture:
- Martocci initiated an action in contract against The Greater New York Brewery, Inc. in the trial court (court of first instance) for recovery of commissions.
- At the close of Martocci's case, without cross-examination or defense testimony, both parties moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted Martocci's motion for a directed verdict, ruling the Statute of Frauds was inapplicable, and entered judgment in Martocci's favor for $16,597.80 plus costs.
- The Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court) unanimously reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed Martocci's complaint on the law, holding that the Statute of Frauds applied and defendant's letters did not constitute a sufficient memorandum (The Greater New York Brewery, Inc. was the appellant, Martocci was the appellee).
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 memorandum, comprised of multiple letters, satisfy the Statute of Frauds' requirement for a contract that cannot be performed within one year, even if the memorandum does not explicitly state the consideration furnished by the plaintiff, but implicitly acknowledges it through the parties' relationship and performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Froessel, J.
Yes, the written memorandum, comprised of multiple letters, satisfied the Statute of Frauds' requirement because the letters, read together and in light of the circumstances, sufficiently acknowledged the agreement and the consideration furnished by the plaintiff. The court held that the Statute of Frauds does apply to this transaction because the contractual relationship, and thus the defendant's liability, was intended to continue beyond a year, making its endurance the deciding factor. However, the court found that the two letters, dated April 27, 1942, and August 26, 1942, collectively met the statute's requirements. While the first letter was silent as to Martocci's specific consideration, it could be found by "necessary implication" when read in light of admissions in the defendant's answer and the parties' relationship. Crucially, the August 26, 1942, letter, drafted by defendant's president, clearly established the consideration. In stating, "In view of our arrangements with you, we have not felt that we should approach Lorillard through our own sales representatives... we would be obligated to pay them as well as you," the defendant unequivocally acknowledged its obligation and that Martocci had furnished the consideration. This written acknowledgment that Martocci had performed removed the "peril of perjury and error." The court likened Martocci's role to that of a broker, whose work was complete upon successfully inducing Lorillard to take the syrup and furnish defendant with a new customer. Therefore, despite the trial court's error in ruling the Statute of Frauds inapplicable, its directed verdict for Martocci was correct as there were no factual issues for a jury, and the writings spoke for themselves.
Analysis:
This case offers a significant interpretation of the Statute of Frauds, demonstrating judicial flexibility in enforcing agreements when the written memorandum is not a single, comprehensive document. It clarifies that multiple documents, interpreted in context and supported by acknowledgments of performance, can collectively satisfy the writing requirement. The ruling also underscores that the Statute of Frauds aims to prevent fraud, and where a promisor's own writings confirm performance by the promisee, the underlying purpose of the statute is met. This precedent is crucial for contracts where consideration has been partially or fully rendered and subsequent communications serve as corroboration, potentially expanding the enforceability of less formally documented long-term agreements.
