Section 5: an Agreement Not to Be Performed Within a Year Must Be in

writing, and this provision of the statute has been the subject of rather an odd construction by the courts. The words "not to be performed within a year" have been construed to mean "which cannot possibly be performed within a year." Suppose A hires B for a year from to-morrow and contrast with that case a promise to hire B for B's life, or for the promisor's life. Now the first of those bargains is within the statute and must be in writing, but the second, although it seems for a much longer period, being for the whole life of the promisor or promisee, is not within the statute. The man on whose death the promise depends may die within a year, so there is a possibility of performance within a year. A promise to employ B for all his life, since that may possibly be done within a year, need not be put in writing. But a promise to hire a man for a year from to-morrow cannot be performed in a year. True, he may die within a year, and then the contract cannot be enforced, but there will be no performance. What was agreed, by the parties, was service for a year from to-morrow and that cannot possibly be done earlier than a year from to-morrow.

SALE OF GOODS.--A contract for the sale of goods exceeding in value a certain amount must also be in writing unless part or all of the goods have been delivered or part or all of the price paid. The value of the goods which brings a sale within this section of the Statute of Frauds varies in different States, and local statutes, therefore, should be consulted to ascertain the law in this connection.

Besides the kinds of contracts enumerated in the English statute and which have generally been adopted in this country there are two or three other classes of contracts which in a number of States are required by statute to be in writing. Of this sort is a contract to make a will. That is not a very common sort of contract, but sometimes a man promises in consideration of certain services to make a will in another's favor. The possibility of fraud in such cases is considerable. The testator is always dead before the question comes up, and then if the alleged promisee were allowed to prove by oral statements a contract to bequeath the testator's property on terms which the promisee says were agreed upon between them, it would afford a chance to produce the same effect as if oral wills were allowed. So a contract of a real estate agent for commissions is in some States required to be in writing. A contract with an agent empowering him to sell real estate, though not regarded at common law as within the prohibition of the section of the statute for the sale of an interest in land to be in writing, is by special enactment in many States required to be in writing. A contract for a loan of money reserving a rate of interest higher than that ordinarily allowed by law is sometimes required to be in writing.

WHAT CONSTITUTES WRITING.--The writing being a matter of proof, it is not essential that it be made at the time the contract is entered into. If made at any time before an action upon the contract is begun, that is a sufficient compliance with the statute. The writing, in order to be sufficient, must show who the parties to the agreement are, if not by naming them, by such a description as points to a specific person. Thus a letter addressed simply "Sir," and signed by the party charged, but not containing the name of the person addressed, is not sufficient. It is also required that all the terms of the contract appear in the writing, such as the subject matter, price, terms of credit or any express warranty, but, as often happens, they need not all be expressed in one writing. Contracts are frequently made as the result of an extended correspondence, and in such a case the various letters can be put together and construed as one writing if they obviously refer to one another, and thus all the terms appear in writing. The statutes in some States require "subscription" of the signature, and in that case the signing must be at the end; but where there is not such requirement a signing in the body of the instrument is sufficient.

ALTERATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACT BY SPOKEN WORDS.--Failure to understand and observe the rule restricting parol evidence to vary written contracts leads to a great deal of trouble. The parol evidence rule is this: Where parties have executed a written contract purporting to state the terms of their agreement, the court will not receive evidence that they orally agreed to something less or more or different, at or before the time when the written agreement was executed. That written agreement is taken as conclusive evidence of the contract made at that time. In trying to ascertain what the writing means, however, the court will permit the surrounding circumstances to be shown, and the meaning of technical or trade terms or abbreviations may be proved. It may be shown also that the parties did not intend the written agreement to be effective until some particular event happened; but if the writing was executed as an expression of the intention of the parties at that time, the only endeavor of the court will be to ascertain the meaning of the written words and to enforce them as written. The question of oral agreements made subsequent to the writing is not so simple. We must here distinguish between (1) contracts of which the law requires written evidence because they are within the Statute of Frauds, and (2) contracts which the law does not require to be in writing, but which, nevertheless, are written. Contracts of the latter sort may be rescinded, added to or subtracted from by any subsequent agreement which conforms to the requirements of the law governing mutual consent and consideration, though of course it is very desirable, to avoid dispute, that any variation or rescission of a written contract should itself be in writing. If, however, the Statute of Frauds required the original contract to be in writing, though it may orally be rescinded, it cannot be varied by oral agreement. To permit such an oral agreement would in effect violate the Statute of Frauds by permitting an agreement partly in writing but partly oral to be enforced. Thus, if a written contract for the sale of goods (exceeding in value the amount permitted to be contracted for orally) was made, and the parties afterwards orally agreed to change the price, the time of delivery, or any other terms of the contract, the subsequent oral agreement would be invalid.

THE LIMITS OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS.--As a general rule a contract does not impose liabilities or confer rights on a person who is not a party to it. It follows from the very nature of a contract that a person who is not a party to it cannot be included in the rights or liabilities which it creates, so that he will be entitled to sue or render himself liable to be sued upon it. A contract is the result of a voluntary agreement entered into by the parties. Therefore, any contractual rights or liabilities existing by virtue of such voluntary agreement between Smith and Jones are no concern of White and Black. They cannot be bound by any of the provisions of the contract between Smith and Jones, nor can a breach of that contract give them any rights. There are apparent exceptions to the rule we have just mentioned. One is in the case of agency. Here one person represents another in entering into a contract. A contract, however, made by an agent can bind a principal only by force of a previous authority or a subsequent ratification, so that really the contract which binds the principal is his own contract. The other exception is where the rights and liabilities created by a contract may pass to a person other than the original party to it, either by act of the parties themselves or by operation of law. Such would be the case where Smith and Jones have performed the terms of their contract except that Smith has not paid the agreed amount to Jones. Jones assigns his right to collect this amount to White. Such an assignment is permissible, as we will learn when we consider that subject later on. Such is an assignment by act of the parties themselves. Even this exception is limited, as the obligations incurred in purely personal service contracts are not subject to assignment. Thus, if I employ artist Greene to paint my portrait, he could not assign this contract and compel me to accept a portrait painted by artist Brown.

THE RULE OF LAWRENCE v. FOX.--We shall now take up a very generally recognized exception to the principle we have just discussed. The question in its simplest form is this: If Smith and Jones make a contract for the benefit of Greene, may Greene sue on that contract? From what we have said in the preceding paragraph a negative answer might seem to be correct. However, to-day, stated in general terms, and leaving out of the question the limitations recognized in various jurisdictions, the very general rule is that a third party (Greene in our illustration) may enforce a promise made for his benefit, even though he is a stranger both to the contract and to the consideration. In other words, it is held not to be necessary that any consideration move from the third party. It is enough if there is a sufficient consideration between the parties who make the agreement for the benefit of the third party. So in the leading case of Lawrence v. Fox, 20 New York 268, where a debtor of the plaintiff had loaned money to the defendant and the defendant had promised him to pay the plaintiff, although the plaintiff was not a party to the contract, it was held that where a promise is "made to one for the benefit of another, he for whose benefit it is made may bring an action for its breach."

QUALIFICATION OF RULE.--We must call attention to one qualification quite generally recognized. Under this rule, that a beneficiary may enforce a contract, it is necessary that the contract must have been intended for the benefit of a third person. It is not sufficient that the performance may just happen to benefit a third person; it must have been intended for the benefit of a more or less definite person. Thus, where a county board had entered into a contract with a construction company which was building a bridge for it and maintaining a temporary foot bridge during the operation, by the terms of which contract the construction company assumed responsibility for all injuries suffered by pedestrians using the temporary foot bridge, it was held that a person who was injured because of the failure to light the foot bridge properly, was not such a third person as might sue under the rule of Lawrence v. Fox, on the contract made between the county board and the construction company.

APPLICATION OF RULE.--The rule in Lawrence v. Fox has been applied to contracts under seal in many jurisdictions, although there are some decisions to the contrary. A common application of this doctrine is found in the sale of real property with a mortgage upon it. The new purchaser as a part of the purchase price makes an agreement whereby he assumes the payment of the mortgagee. The question of whether the mortgagee, who is really the third party for whose benefit the contract is made, may sue the new owner, is generally answered in the affirmative.

CAPACITY OF PARTIES.--All persons are ordinarily presumed to be capable of contracting, but the law imposes upon some--in varying amounts and for their own protection--disabilities to make contracts which may be enforced against them; and, upon some, for considerations of public policy, disabilities to make enforceable contracts. These persons are (1) Infants; (2) Insane persons; (3) Drunkards; (4) Married women--to a limited extent; (5) Aliens; (6) Artificial persons or corporations.

WHO ARE INFANTS.--All persons under the age of twenty-one are considered infants, except that in some States, by statute, women attain their majority at eighteen. The law endeavors to protect those who have no experience and judgment against the loss of their property because of their inability to deal safely with others who might take an advantage of that fact. It may well be that one who has nearly attained his majority is as able in fact to protect his interests as one of full age, but the essence of the law is that it is a rule of universal application, and the law cannot measure the ability in each particular case. To do the greatest good for the greatest number, therefore, it conclusively presumes that those under twenty-one have not yet gained the ability to cope with others in the preservation of their property.

CONTRACTS OF AN INFANT.--An infant's contracts are voidable; that is, though they bind the other party to the bargain the infant himself may avoid them. If he avoids them the adult with whom he contracted is entitled to recover whatever he may have given the infant which still remains in the latter's possession; but if the infant has spent or used, or for any reason no longer has the consideration which the adult gave him, the infant may avoid his own obligation if he has not already performed it, and if he has already performed it he may reclaim what he has given. After he comes of age, but not before, the infant may ratify his contracts and they then become binding upon him. The retention after coming of age of property received by the infant during his minority amounts to a ratification. There are a few obligations of an infant which on grounds of public policy are binding upon him. This is true of a contract to perform military service. The marriage of an infant is binding though his engagement is not. It is frequently said that his contract for necessaries is binding; strictly this is not true. The infant is liable for necessaries, but his obligation does not depend upon his contract; it is an obligation imposed by law--what has been called a quasi-contract. The importance of this distinction is shown if the price agreed upon exceeded the real value of the necessaries. If the contract were binding, the infant would be bound to pay the agreed price, but in fact he is liable only for the fair value. What is necessary for an infant depends upon his station in life, upon whether he already has a sufficient supply of the necessary article in question, and upon whether he is receiving proper support from a parent or guardian. The privilege of an infant is generally held to exist even though the party dealing with him not only reasonably believed the infant of age, but had received actual representations from the infant to that effect.

INSANE PERSONS AND DRUNKARDS--The law affords protection to insane persons and, to a less extent, to drunkards, for the same reason as in the case of infants, namely, that those who are incapable of understanding what they are doing and of comprehending the effect of their contracts upon their property should be safeguarded against the designs of the more capable. This protection is given them by declaring some of their contracts void, and allowing them, or those legally representing them, to avoid all others with the exception of a few. Also, as in the case of infants, this privilege as to such contracts is for the insane person's protection only, and the other party to the contract may not avoid it by pleading that it was made with an incompetent person.

WHOM DOES THE LAW CONSIDER INSANE?--Modern science has clearly established that a person may be insane on one subject, and yet possess a clear understanding and be perfectly sound on another. If the contract deals with a subject of which the person has a clear understanding, he is not in need of protection and is given none. Those only are given the protection who do not possess the mind to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the act in which they engage.

BINDING OBLIGATIONS FOR NECESSARIES.--The insane must live as well as the sane; consequently they are bound to pay for necessaries furnished them but only the reasonable value, as has been explained in the case of infants. The rules for determining what these necessaries may be are the same as in the case of infants.

OTHER CONTRACTS.--It is often a difficult matter to know when a person is insane, much more difficult than it is to determine a person's age. One of the contracting parties may have acted in perfect good faith, being ignorant of the other's unsoundness of mind and having no judicial determination of insanity or other warning to put him on his guard. The contract even may be reasonable in its terms, and it may have been so acted upon that the parties to it cannot be restored to their original position. In such a case, while the law should protect the incompetent, it would be clear injustice to protect him to such an extent as to make the other party suffer through no fault of his own. It has been quite generally determined in this country, therefore, that where a person does not know of the other's insanity and there has been no judicial determination of such insanity to notify the world of it, and the contract is a fair one, and has been so acted upon that the parties cannot be restored to their original position, it is binding upon the lunatic as well as upon the other party.

VOID CONTRACTS.--In some States it is held, however, that all contracts of an insane person are void. In such States the rule above stated would not hold. The law of each State must be consulted to determine the law in the particular State. In some States, notably New York and Massachusetts, an insane person's deed of lands has been held to be void, without reference to whether or not the other party entered into the contract in good faith without notice, or that it has been so far acted upon that the parties cannot be restored to their original position. As in the case of infants, an insane person's power of attorney has been declared by high authority to be absolutely void.

VOIDABLE CONTRACTS.--In most jurisdictions an insane person's contracts are voidable by him or by his guardian, provided (1) that the other person knew of his insanity at the time of making the contract, or (2) he had been declared insane by some court, or (3) the parties can be restored to their original position.

RATIFICATION AND AVOIDANCE.--When the insane person's reason has been restored, if the contract is a voidable one, as explained in the foregoing rules, though he may by acts or words avoid the contract he made during his insanity, he may in like manner ratify it, or he may ratify it by not avoiding it within a reasonable time after recovering his reason while continuing to keep something capable of being returned, which he obtained under the contract.

WHAT CONSTITUTES DRUNKENNESS.--It is not ordinary drunkenness which excuses a man from his contracts, and enables him to claim the protection given generally to incapable persons. The person must have been utterly deprived of his reason and understanding, so that he could not comprehend the nature or effect of the act in which he was engaged. That he was so much under the influence of liquor that his judgment was not as good as in his normal state does not excuse him.

MARRIED WOMEN.--It is practically impossible to state in brief form the law upon the subject of married women's contracts. The difficulty arises from the diverse changes made in the plain and clear rules of the common law by statutes in the different States. The old law is wholly incompatible with the enlightened view now held in regard to women, their family, social and business standing, and the changes have been made to give them the rights to which they are justly entitled. But, inasmuch as the statutes have not been uniform in the different States, the law to-day is not wholly uniform. The statutes and decisions in each State must be consulted to determine the law on the subject as it is to-day. Through these changes the law has become very complicated, and business men should obtain legal advice before entering into important business dealings with married women.

THE OLD RULE.--Upon her marriage a woman's existence became merged in that of her husband, and the husband and wife were regarded for many purposes as one person. What tangible personal property she had became his immediately upon marriage, and he had the right to reduce her bills, notes, bonds and other debts to his possession. Her real property she retained the title to, subject to the right of the husband to have the use of it during his life, if children were born of the marriage. He was bound to supply her with necessaries, and so long as he did this her contracts for things of even ordinary use were void; but if he failed to supply the necessaries her contract for them would be valid. All her other contracts were absolutely void--not voidable. Her position, then, was worse than an infant's. She could have personal property of her own only if it was given to someone else to hold the title and pay over the income to her, and even this "separate estate," as it was called, could not be bound by her contracts.

CHANGES MADE BY STATUTE.--The law of married women's contracts has been greatly changed by legislative enactments, to give married women the rights which the more enlightened view of the present time accords to them. The first changes aimed quite generally to give her greater rights over her "separate estate," giving her power to make binding contracts with reference to it, or to make binding contracts if she were carrying on a trade or business of her own. But the earlier statutes frequently did not give her power to contract with her husband, or to make binding contracts if she had no separate estate, or was not carrying on a separate business. Later enactments have largely corrected these defects, but the old rule still stands except as it has been changed by statute, and, therefore, the statutes of each State and the decisions interpreting them must be consulted to determine accurately the law in each State. It may, however, be said that generally a married woman may now contract except with her husband, and except as surety for him. In many States she can even make contracts of these excepted classes.

ALIENS.--An alien is one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, of a father not a citizen of this country, and who has not been naturalized. In times of peace, aliens may hold property and make contracts and seek the protection of our courts as freely as citizens. When war breaks out between this country and another the making of contracts between citizens of the two countries is prohibited. If such contracts are made during a state of war, they are illegal and void, and the courts of this country will not lend their aid to enforce them, either during the war or after its termination. Contracts made before the war breaks out are good, but cannot be enforced, nor can remedies for their breach be obtained, while the war is in progress. When the war ceases, however, the courts will lend their aid to the enforcement of such contracts.

CORPORATIONS.--A corporation may contract as freely as an individual so long as its contracts are within the business powers and scope of the business which its charter authorizes it to conduct. And even if a corporation has made a contract outside of the scope of its business, and the contract has been acted upon so that either party has had the benefit of the contract, an action will lie in favor of the other for the benefits so conferred. But a contract outside of the business which its charter permits the corporation to engage in, and which is wholly executory, the courts will not enforce. Such contracts are said to be ultra vires. Contracts with a corporation may be in the same form as contracts between individuals, and the corporation need use its seal only where an ordinary person is required to use one. The officer or officers making the contract on behalf of a corporation must, however, be authorized so to do either by the directors or by the general powers attached to such officers. In law corporations are deemed to be artificial persons subject in a general way to provisions governing natural persons.