Bull Riders v. AutoZone
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Bull Riders v. AutoZone | |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 113 P.3d 757 |
| Date decided | June 13, 2005 |
| Appealed from | 10th Circuit |
Facts
- The Professional Bull Riders, Inc. = PBR = "Bull Riders" = a major professional bull-riding organization
- AutoZone, Inc. = "AutoZone" = sponsor of events for Bull Riders = a major American auto parts retailer
- Bull Riders presented a contract where AutoZone would sponsor Bull Riders in 2001 & 2002
- AutoZone could terminate its sponsorship by giving a notice before August 15th 2001
- AutoZone never signed this contract
- In January 2002, AutoZone informed Bull Riders that the sponsorship would not be happening in 2002.
Procedural History
- Bull Riders sued AutoZone claiming a breach of the oral contract.
- The district court granted summary judgment for AutoZone.
Issues
Is an oral contract void under the statute of frauds when it offers alternate methods of performance, 1 of which can be performed within 1 year?
Arguments
Bull Riders contended that AutoZone acted as if the un-signed contract had taken effect.
Holding
No. An oral contract isn't void under the statute of frauds when it offers alternate methods of performance, 1 of which can be performed within 1 year.
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
- AutoZone didn't give notice of its intent to terminate the contract in August 2001
- AutoZone acted as if there was a contract until January 2002.
Rule
- Statute of Frauds = a contract that can't be completed in 1 year has to be in writing = https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/statute-of-frauds
