Court Opinion

ID: 9858972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 17:53:10.81137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:13:30.128478
License: Public Domain

*348ALLBEE, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in division III of the Chief Justice’s dissent. I am also in agreement with that dissent on what I perceive as the two essential and central points made in the first two divisions.
First, the legislature has made a determination that certain injustices which may occur under the auspices of the statute of frauds are outweighed by benefits conferred by that statute. This the legislature has the right to do. I would defer to that body’s judgment.
Second, some difficulty has arisen because this court has not given recognition to the fact that the statute of frauds is not an appropriate defense in a case in which promissory estoppel is proposed as a consideration substitute. I would not now rely upon those faulty cases to erroneously emasculate the statute in cases where it is applicable: those involving a bilateral agreement.