Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.
1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2969, 185 F. Supp. 165 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract that, by its terms, cannot be performed within one year is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, even if it is for specially manufactured goods. However, a party who incurs reasonable expenses in reliance upon the unenforceable contract may recover those reliance damages.
Facts:
- In late 1955, Capital Airlines, Inc.'s local manager approached L. G. Riley to supply a water methanol mixture for its aircraft at the Mobile, Alabama terminal.
- After initial verbal negotiations where a five-year contract was discussed, Riley purchased specialized equipment and materials to produce the mixture.
- In August 1956, Riley alleges he entered into an oral five-year contract with Victor Luecke, an employee of Capital Airlines.
- Riley began supplying the mixture, with each delivery invoiced separately under a blanket purchase order number provided by Capital Airlines.
- After the alleged August 1956 agreement, Riley purchased an additional storage tank which was installed at the airport and used exclusively by Capital Airlines.
- The water methanol was manufactured by Riley specifically for Capital Airlines according to its unique specifications and was not suitable for sale to other customers.
- On July 2, 1958, Capital Airlines notified Riley that it would cancel the blanket purchase order as of September 1, 1958, as it had awarded a larger regional supply contract to another bidder.
Procedural Posture:
- L. G. Riley filed an action for breach of an oral contract against Capital Airlines, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury.
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 the enforcement of an oral contract that is not to be performed within one year, even if the contract is for goods specially manufactured for the buyer?
Opinions:
Majority - Daniel Holcombe Thomas, District Judge
Yes, the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of the unexecuted portion of the oral five-year contract. While the court finds as a matter of fact that a five-year oral agreement existed, it is unenforceable under Alabama's Statute of Frauds, which voids any agreement not to be performed within one year unless it is in writing. The plaintiff argued that the contract fell under the sale of goods statute's exception for specially manufactured goods. The court rejected this, reasoning that the general one-year provision and the sale of goods provision must be read together to prevent fraud. Because the contract's duration exceeded one year, the one-year provision controls, making the executory portion of the agreement unenforceable. The court also held that part performance does not remove an action at law from the Statute of Frauds in Alabama. However, citing principles of justice, the court awarded the plaintiff reliance damages to compensate for the reasonable expenditures he made on equipment in a good faith endeavor to perform the contract.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the judicial interpretation of conflicting provisions within a state's Statute of Frauds, prioritizing the one-year provision over the exception for specially manufactured goods in a long-term supply contract. The decision establishes that for multi-year oral contracts, the specially manufactured goods exception cannot save the agreement from the one-year rule. Importantly, the case demonstrates that even when a contract is unenforceable, a court may use equitable principles to award reliance damages, preventing the defendant from being unjustly enriched and compensating the plaintiff for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in good faith. This provides a potential remedy for parties who act upon unenforceable oral promises, distinct from recovering lost profits (expectancy damages).
Unlock the full brief for Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.