## Facts

- George Murphy and Murphy Motors, Ltd. operated automobile dealerships in Honolulu and recruited Dick McIntosh, a California resident, for a management job in Hawaii.
- After initial interviews in California, Murphy’s general manager later called McIntosh about possible employment in Hawaii; McIntosh confirmed interest and planned to travel to Honolulu.
- The day before McIntosh arrived, Murphy offered him an assistant sales manager position starting the following Monday; McIntosh accepted and reported to work as scheduled.
- In reliance on the promised employment, McIntosh relocated from Los Angeles to Honolulu, moved some belongings, sold other possessions, leased an apartment, and forewent other job opportunities.
- McIntosh worked about two and a half months and was discharged for alleged performance deficiencies.
- The parties disputed the oral agreement’s exact terms, but the verdict reflected a finding of a one-year employment promise.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged one-year oral employment agreement was unenforceable under HRS § 656-1(5) absent a writing because it was not to be performed within one year from its making.
2. Whether the employer was equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds because the employee reasonably and foreseeably relied to his detriment such that nonenforcement would be unjust.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the judgment for McIntosh and left intact the jury’s damages award.
- The court did not rely on the trial court’s view that the contract fell outside the Statute of Frauds based on when acceptance occurred.
- Assuming the one-year provision applied, the court held the defendants were equitably estopped from pleading the Statute of Frauds because McIntosh’s substantial, foreseeable reliance made nonenforcement unjust.

## Legal Principles

- The Statute of Frauds may not be used to produce injustice where the promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance, the promise does induce it, and enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice.
- Equitable estoppel (including reliance-based enforcement associated with promissory estoppel principles) can bar a Statute of Frauds defense when the promisee has materially and detrimentally changed position in reliance on an oral agreement.
- Serious reliance supporting estoppel can include relocation and significant life changes undertaken in response to an employment promise, not merely minor preliminary expenses.

## Conclusion

An oral one-year employment promise may be enforced despite the Statute of Frauds when the employer could foresee and did induce substantial, detrimental reliance, making it inequitable to permit the employer to avoid liability by invoking the statute.


McIntosh v. Murphy, 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177 (Haw. 1970)