Cooper Petroleum Co. v. LaGloria Oil and Gas Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding when only benefit guarantor received from continued credit sales was as one of stockholders, benefit was too remote and indirect to be enforceable as an original undertaking and promised guaranty was within statute of frauds
• estoppel may be predicated on silence where there is a duty to speak
• “[T]he basic reason for requiring that a promise to answer for the default of another be in writing is that the promisor has received no direct benefit from the transaction.”
• ″[T]he basic reason for requiring that a promise to answer for the default of another be in writing is that the promisor has received no direct benefit from the transaction.″

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).