Farash v. Sykes Datatronics, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Contracts

ContractsStatute of FraudsRelianceQuasi ContractRestitutionoral leaseStatute of Fraudsvoid contract

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that defendant agreed to lease plaintiff's building and asked plaintiff to complete renovations and modifications on an expedited basis. Defendant never signed a contract and never occupied the building. Plaintiff pleaded one claim to enforce an oral lease, a second claim to recover the value of work performed in reliance on defendant's statements and request, and a third claim based on an agreement that plaintiff would do the work and defendant would enter a lease. The dispute centered on whether the second claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds like the first and third claims.

Issue

Whether a plaintiff who performed renovation work at defendant's request in reliance on an unenforceable oral lease arrangement may recover the value of that performance, even though the lease itself is barred by the Statute of Frauds and defendant never occupied or benefited from the premises. Also, whether such a claim is barred because plaintiff also pleaded contract-based theories.

Rule

An oral lease for a term longer than one year, and an oral agreement to enter into such a lease, are barred by the Statute of Frauds. But a plaintiff may disaffirm the void agreement and maintain a quasi-contract or reliance-based claim to recover the fair and reasonable value of work performed at defendant's request and in reliance on defendant's representations, for expenditures the plaintiff otherwise would not have made, even if the defendant received no actual benefit; pleading that theory in the alternative to unenforceable contract claims is permissible.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Nina Ortega orally agreed to lease her warehouse to Pine Harbor Analytics for five years. At Pine Harbor's request, Nina installed reinforced shelving and upgraded electrical service to suit Pine Harbor's operations, but Pine Harbor never signed anything and never moved in.

If Nina sues, which claim is most likely to survive?

Explanation. The majority distinguished between enforcing an oral lease for more than one year, which is barred by the Statute of Frauds, and disaffirming the void agreement to recover the value of work performed at the defendant's request and in reliance on its representations. Nina cannot enforce the lease or recover as though the lease were valid, but she may pursue quasi-contract/reliance recovery for the fair and reasonable value of the work she otherwise would not have done. (Derived from Farash v. Sykes Datatronics, Inc. (n.d.).)