Statute of Frauds of Maine. CHAPTER XIX. THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND LIMITATIONS. THERE HERE are certain cases, as was mentioned in the first part of this book, where the law interposes to prevent disputes and misrepresentation, by means of special statutes, providing that contracts of certain kinds, in regard to which there is most likely to be misapprehension or error, shall not be valid, or enforceable at law, unless they are made in writing, and signed by at least one of the parties interested. These special statutes are known as the Statutes of Frauds and Limitations, and may sometimes be of serious importance to builders. The first part of the Statute of Frauds and Limitations of Maine reads as follows: "No action shall be maintained in any of the following cases: 1. "To charge an executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer damages out of his own estate; 2. "To charge any person upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or misdoings of another; 3. "To charge any person upon an agreement made in consideration of marriage; 4. "Upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any interest in or concerning them; 5. "Upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof; 6. "Upon any contract to pay a debt after a discharge therefrom under the bankrupt laws of the United States, or assignment or insolvent laws of this State; "Unless the promise, contract or agreement, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto lawfully authorized; but the consideration thereof need not be expressed therein, and may be proved otherwise." So far as builders are concerned, the portion of the statute which most interests them is that which provides that contracts for work which is not to be performed within a year must be in writing. Probably nine-tenths of the contracts made with builders are verbal, and a large part of these are for work which is very unlikely to be performed within a year. Fortunately for them, the courts take an indulgent view of the law, and usually hold that if the contract could have been performed within a year, even though the agreement did not require it to be so, the Statute of Frauds does not apply to it. A man once agreed verbally to allow another to come upon his land at any time within ten years, and cut certain trees. Some years later, the land was divided, and when the treecutter came after his property, he was sued for damages as a trespasser, on the ground that the original contract was void. The Supreme Court, however, held that he might have cut all the trees within one year, if he had wished to do so, and that therefore the contract was valid. In another case, a man agreed verbally to work for another five years, or as long as he should be agent for a certain company. If he had simply agreed to work for the other for five years, this promise would probably have been held void for want of writing; but, in a subsequent controversy, it was decided that the contract was valid, because he had qualified his agreement to work for five years by adding the words " or as long as he should be agent for the company," and he might have been discharged by the company within a year, so that the Statute of Frauds did not apply to the transaction. Agreement not to be Performed within a Year. Roberts vs. Rock bottom Co., 7 Met. 46. Blanding vs. Sonch vs. Strawbridge, 2 C. B. 808, 815. Wells vs. 4 Bing. 40, 43. Blake vs. 22 Pick. 97. Kent vs. Kent, 18 Pick. 569. Lyon us. 11 Met. 411. Tatterson vs. 106 Mass. 56. Moore vs. 10 John. 244. McLees vs. 10 Wend. 426. Shute vs. 5 Wend. 201. Linscott vs. 15 Maine 201. Russell vs. 12 Conn. 445. Plimpton vs. 15 Wend. 336. Clark vs. Pendleton, 20 Conn. 495. Lockwood vs. 3 Hill 128. Esty vs. Aldrich, 46 N. H. 128. Ellicott vs. 4 Md. 476. In a New Hampshire case, it was held that if the time of performance might arrive within a year, even though it should be highly improbable that it would, the contract did not come within the Statute. The Court said, "The Statute (of Frauds) "does not apply to any contract, unless by its express terms, "or by reasonable construction, it is not to be performed, that "is, is incapable in any event of being performed, within one "year from the time it is made. 66 "If by its terms, or by reasonable construction, the contract can be fully performed within a year, although it can only be "done by the occurrence of some contingency by no means "likely to happen, such as the death of some party or person "referred to in the contract, the statute has no application, and "no writing is necessary. "If the agreement can be fully performed by either of "the parties within the year, and it is so performed, the agree66 ment of the other party is not within the statute, though it "may be impossible to perform it within a year." In applying the law to building contracts, the question would be whether the agreement excluded the possibility of completion within a year or not. A verbal contract for building a house, made in New York, October 1, 1828, provided that the house should be done "before the close of the year 1829." A dispute arose about the agreement, and the defendant claimed that it was void, under the Statute of Frauds. The Supreme Court decided otherwise, saying, "The agreement set forth "in the declaration in this case is not for the building of a "house after the expiration of one year, but is to be performed "at the farthest within fifteen months. There is nothing in "the agreement prohibiting the defendant from completing the "contract within six months, or a shorter period. Suppose he "had done so, and sued the plaintiff for compensation for his "labor and materials found, would it have been permitted to "the plaintiff to have said that the contract was not to be per"formed within a year, and therefore it was not obligatory on "him? Most clearly not. And if obligatory on one party, it "is equally so on the other. The defendant might have per"formed the contract within a year, and it is therefore not "within the statute." The statute law in most, or all of our States, interferes with contracts in one other way, by providing that agreements made on Sunday shall be void, whether they are in writing or Nevertheless, an agreement signed on Sunday, but ratified on some other day, will often be held to be valid, the question of its validity depending on the wording of the statute, and various other circumstances. not. Sunday Contracts. Catlett vs. Tr. M. E. Ch., 62 Ind. 365. Perkins vs. 26 Ind. 199. Fraudulent Contract not Binding. Martine vs. Nelson, 51 Ill. 422. IT CHAPTER XX. MISREPRESENTATION OR MISTAKE. T is a very common, but erroneous notion that if a man has once been inveigled into signing a contract, he cannot escape from it, even though he should find out afterward that he had been grossly deceived in regard to it. Although the law presumes that men will use ordinary caution in their business transactions, and will do nothing to relieve those who fail to do so, it fully recognizes the fact that no prudence can always protect a man against fraud, and it may be relied upon to prevent, so far as legal principles will permit, the person guilty of the fraud from gaining any advantage from it. Even where, instead of fraud, there has been only a mistake, it will generally be found that, if the mistake is clearly established, and it was not one which might have been avoided with ordinary care, the law will rectify the error, or relieve innocent parties from the consequences of it, provided this can be done without injustice to other parties, who are equally innocent, and more careful. In an Illinois case, a man brought plans and specifications to a painter, and asked him for an estimate. The painter was too busy to examine and take measurements from the plans, and the owner explained them to him. Upon these explanations the painter made a bid, which was accepted, and he sent his men to the building to begin the work. He then left town |
