Statue Of Frauds: The Case Of Jose Castillo

It is evident that a license is required to manage a professional boxer. The fact that Castillo was not licensed may make the contract voidable not only this, but Castillo ultimately failed to execute the writing requirement which is crucial in this case because, the contract falls under the Statue of Frauds. With the existence of contract laws it is crucial for the employer to be aware of all the laws and theories that surround a contract. In this case Jose Castillo who does not hold a management license, orally agreed to assume Barrera’s management and after Castillo helped Barrera settle a few lawsuits and financial problems Barrera stopped communicating with Castillo. With no surprise this case brings up a lot of issues and legal questions.
For one thing, Castillo orally assumed to engage as Barrera’s manager and it is reasonable to say that Barrera also agreed. With this in mind it is reasonable to say that when Castillo assumed the management position he was thinking long term. The question is why was the contract oral and not in writing? It is important to understand that a long term contract fall under the Statue of Frauds and it is required to be in writing or some type of recording in order to be subject to enforcement it is also referred to as ‘the one year rule’. Miller explains that, “Contracts that cannot, by their own terms, be performed within one year from the day after the contract is formed must be in writing to be enforceable. The reason for this rule is that the parties’ memory of their contract’s term.” (Miller. Defenses to Contract Enforcement. Ch. 13)
The fact that Barrera stooped communicating with Castillo may constitute as a breach of contract. If the contract is voidable and enforceable than I would certainly agree that Barrera failed to complete the contract and should be liable for breach of contract. To put it in legal terms the text illustrates, “In most contracts, promises of performance are not expressly conditioned or qualified. Instead, they are absolute promises. They must be performed, or the party making the promise will be in breach of contract.” (Miller. Third Party Rights and Discharge.
It is evident to say that a quasi-contract may exist in this case because Castillo has provided services and benefits with the expectation to be compensated for and anything short of that constitutes as unjust enrichment at the expense of the executed party. Accordingly, Miller describes a quasi-contract as a theory in law in which the court binds two parties into an agreement even though one does not exist. More importantly is set up to prevent one party from becoming enriched by taking advantage of the other party. (Miller. Breach and Remedies. Ch.15)
The non-breaching party, may certainly collect damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. And I would conclude that even though Castillo missed a few requirements that make a contract voidable and enforceable contract it is reasonable to say that both parties agreed to the oral contract initially. I belief Castillo should be eligible for damages because Barrera ultimately turned his back on the contract that he had with