Martin, Human Resources Director for Spring Co., sent Lynn the following signed
letter: “This letter confirms our offer to you. We will pay for your moving expenses, up
to $1,500. Your starting date will be February 1, and you will become eligible for health
care benefits as of May 1. You will receive a starting salary of $36,500 annually, with
reviews and eligibility for increases at six months, 12 months, and annually thereafter.
Vacation will be for two weeks a year after one year. Spring fired Lynn eight months
after she started to work, and Lynn sued arguing the letter constituted a memorandum of
an oral contract for employment for five years. Is the letter sufficient to satisfy the
statute of frauds?
a. Yes, to satisfy the statute of frauds, a memorandum is sufficient if it evidences an oral
contract between the parties and is signed by the defendant.
b. Yes, the memorandum is signed by the defendant and states with reasonable certainty
the subject matter and essential terms of the agreement.
c. No, to satisfy the statute of frauds, the memorandum must contain all essential terms
of the contract.
d. No, the letter was not formal enough to satisfy the statute of frauds.
When Mohammed was hired by Pomico, Inc., he signed the following agreement,
“Upon termination of my employment with Pomico, I agree not to work for a
competing company within 30 miles of Pomico’s headquarters for one year.” This
agreement, important to protecting secret information developed in the employer’s
business, is:
a. an unenforceable exculpatory agreement.
b. an unenforceable usurious agreement.
c. an enforceable bailment agreement.
d. an enforceable agreement not to compete.