Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291 (1984)

Citation: Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291 (1984)
Parent Document: Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291 (1984)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1984-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1755323/footwear-unlimited-inc-v-katzenberg/ ↗

Full Text

715 chars

On appeal the appellant, defendant in the trial court, contends that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on his counterclaim on the grounds (1) that the agreement was unenforceable by reason of the Statute of Frauds, § 432.050 V.A.M.S., because respondent waived this defense, a written memorandum of the agreement existed, and application of the Statute of Frauds would have created a tenancy longer than the period of rental claimed and awarded, and; (2) Instruction No. 12 directed a verdict based upon a theory of fraud which was not supported by the evidence because respondent pleaded and proved a case of promissory estoppel which clearly *293 supported the giving of Instruction No. 12. We affirm.

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text