Harold R. Farrow v. Robert v. Cahill and Joel R. Kaswell

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the statute of frauds may be satisfied by a signed letter attempting to repudiate an oral contract
• observing that a memorandum specifying the property sold, the consideration to be paid and parties to the contract undisputedly “em bodie[d] the terms of the contract and, as such, constitute^] a suitable ‘memorandum or note thereof ”
• observing that the “memorandum or note” does not need to be “made by the parties as an expression of the contract or signed with the intention of assenting to the contract’s terms in order to satisfy the Statute”
• consulting Williston and the Restatement to determine whether a particular writing satisfies the statute
• purchase order satisfied statute even though it was not a final expression of agreement between the parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).