From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
Court of Appeals of New York
305 N.Y. 48, 110 N.E. 2d 551 (1953)
In September 1947, Nate Crabtree (plaintiff) entered into negotiations with Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (Arden) (defendant) for employment as a sales manager. Elizabeth Arden, president of Arden, agreed to offer Crabtree a two year contract with a salary of $20,000 for the first six months, $25,000 for the next six months, and $30,000 for the second year. Crabtree replied that the offer was “interesting.” Ms. Arden directed her personal secretary to draft a memorandum of the agreement as discussed with Crabtree. The agreement stated the salary, party names, and position to be offered to Crabtree. It did not expressly state the duration of the contract, but included the notation “2 years to make good.” The memorandum was not signed. Crabtree accepted the position via telephone. When Crabtree reported to work, Mr. Johns, executive vice president of Arden, drafted and initialed a “payroll change card” outlining Crabtree’s agreed-upon salary agreement. After six months of employment, Crabtree’s salary was increased to $25,000. After the next six months, however, Crabtree did not receive an additional increase. He contacted Mr. Carstens, Arden’s comptroller, who drafted and signed an additional payroll change card detailing Crabtree’s salary arrangement. Ms. Arden refused to approve the increase, and Crabtree terminated his employment and brought suit against Arden in New York state court for breach of contract. The trial court held for Crabtree and awarded $14,000 in damages, and the appellate court affirmed. Arden appealed, arguing that the employment contract for two years did not exist, and that even if it did, it was barred by the statute of frauds.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fuld, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.