Caseflicks

Hawaii Supreme Court • 1970

McIntosh v. Murphy

469 P.2d 177 | 52 Haw. 29 | 54 A.L.R. 3d 707 | 1970 Haw. LEXIS 91

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that Hawaii will enforce an oral employment agreement otherwise barred by the Statute of Frauds when an employee's substantial, foreseeable reliance makes enforcement necessary to avoid injustice.

Background

George Murphy recruited Dick McIntosh in California for work at Murphy Motors in Hawaii. After preliminary interviews, Murphy called McIntosh on Saturday, April 25, 1964, told him that an assistant sales-manager position was open, and said work would begin that Monday. McIntosh arrived in Honolulu the next day and began work on April 27.

In reliance on the anticipated employment, McIntosh moved from Los Angeles to Hawaii, shipped or sold possessions, leased an apartment, and gave up other employment opportunities. Murphy discharged him about two and one-half months later. McIntosh claimed that Murphy had promised him one year of employment; Murphy maintained that the arrangement was only a trial employment terminable if McIntosh's work proved unsatisfactory.

Murphy argued that the alleged one-year agreement was unenforceable under HRS § 656-1(5), the Statute of Frauds provision governing agreements not performable within one year. The trial court denied a directed verdict, reasoning that the agreement either became binding when McIntosh began work on Monday or, alternatively, could be performed within a year when the intervening weekend was excluded. The jury found for McIntosh and awarded $12,103.40. Murphy appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the timing of McIntosh's acceptance required reversal because an oral one-year employment agreement made more than one day before performance would fall within the Statute of Frauds.

Holding

No. Although the time of acceptance was ordinarily a factual question, the court did not need to resolve that question because equitable estoppel independently supported enforcement of the agreement.

Reasoning

Murphy correctly argued that, if the agreement was accepted more than one day before McIntosh began work, a one-year promise could not literally be performed within one year of its making and would ordinarily require a writing. The court also acknowledged that the date and manner of acceptance were factual matters for a jury rather than issues the trial judge could conclusively decide as a matter of law.

The court declined to rest its affirmance on the trial judge's effort to characterize the Saturday-Sunday interval as outside the statutory year. Instead, it held that the more direct and principled basis for decision was whether Murphy was estopped from invoking the Statute of Frauds after inducing McIntosh's substantial reliance.

Issue #2

Whether an employer may invoke the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds against an oral employment promise when the employee substantially and foreseeably relied on that promise.

Holding

No, when enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. McIntosh's foreseeable and substantial reliance estopped Murphy from relying on the Statute of Frauds.

Reasoning

The court explained that the Statute of Frauds was originally designed to deter fraud and perjury, but rigid application can itself produce fraud or unconscionable injury. Courts have therefore limited the statute through equitable doctrines, including part performance and equitable estoppel.

Adopting the approach of Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 217A, the court held that an oral promise may be enforced despite the Statute when the promisor should reasonably expect reliance, the promise actually induces reliance, and injustice can be avoided only through enforcement. Relevant considerations include whether other remedies are adequate, whether the reliance was definite and substantial, whether it corroborates the agreement, whether it was reasonable, and whether it was foreseeable to the promisor.

McIntosh's relocation from Los Angeles to Honolulu was a substantial, reasonable, and foreseeable response to Murphy's promise. He moved 2,200 miles, altered his living arrangements, disposed of or shipped possessions, and surrendered other job opportunities in order to take the position. Those actions also corroborated that the parties had made an employment agreement of some kind.

No adequate alternative remedy would have protected McIntosh from being left in Hawaii without the promised job. Because a jury could determine the disputed terms—whether the employment was for one year or only a trial period—and could determine whether discharge was justified, enforcing the agreement and awarding damages was necessary to prevent the injustice caused by McIntosh's reliance.

Dissents

Justice Abe

Reasoning

Justice Abe, joined by Justice Kobayashi, concluded that the trial court's Statute of Frauds ruling was prejudicial error. In his view, the critical question was when McIntosh accepted Murphy's offer. If the jury found that acceptance occurred more than one day before McIntosh was to report for work, the alleged one-year agreement fell within the Statute of Frauds and was unenforceable without a writing.

He also objected that the majority's reliance analysis effectively assumed the disputed premise that Murphy had made a one-year employment promise. Murphy denied that claim and presented evidence that its employees were hired on a trial basis. The dissent viewed the Statute of Frauds as intended precisely to prevent enforcement of such contested oral claims.

Finally, Justice Abe maintained that courts should not use equitable power to create an exception that the legislature had not enacted. If the one-year provision produces hardship, he reasoned, amendment or repeal is a matter for the legislature rather than judicial circumvention of the statute.