## Facts

- Albert Want alleged an oral agreement with Century Supply Company under which he would solicit his former customers for Century, at his own expense, in exchange for a 5% commission on business he generated.
- The alleged arrangement had no fixed term; Want claimed he could work “as long as he wanted,” with no deadline and “whatever time [was] necessary.”
- Century distributed a notice stating Want was “now affiliated” with Century.
- Want alleged he performed for seven months, averaging about $10,000 per month in business for Century and spending about $3,600 in expenses.
- Century allegedly discharged Want without good cause after seven months.
- Want sought an accounting for commissions during the period of performance and requested a lump sum for future commissions, including constructive trust relief.
- The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice for failure to state a claim and as barred by Missouri’s Statute of Frauds one-year provision.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition showed on its face that the alleged oral agreement was incapable of performance within one year and thus unenforceable under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 432.010.
2. Whether the petition, liberally construed, stated a claim for relief (including quantum meruit for services and expenses) notwithstanding disputes about contract enforceability.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The Statute of Frauds did not bar the claim because the alleged open-ended agreement was not shown to be incapable of performance within one year.
- Under liberal pleading rules, the petition stated a claim for relief at least in quantum meruit for services rendered and reasonable expenses incurred before termination.

## Legal Principles

- An oral agreement falls within Missouri’s one-year Statute of Frauds only if, by its terms, it cannot possibly be performed within one year; the mere expectation of longer performance does not trigger the statute.
- Indefinite-duration arrangements are not automatically unenforceable under the one-year clause absent allegations establishing impossibility of performance within a year.
- Missouri pleading rules require liberal construction of petitions in favor of stating a claim.
- Allegations that a party conferred services and incurred reasonable expenses for the other party’s benefit can support quantum meruit recovery even if the full contract measure (including future commissions) is disputed or uncertain.
- In agency-type relationships, termination after the agent has incurred expenses and begun performance can support liability for the value of benefits conferred and expenses reasonably incurred prior to discharge.

## Conclusion

The court held that an oral, indefinite commission arrangement was not barred on the pleadings by the one-year Statute of Frauds and that the allegations of performance and out-of-pocket expenditures were sufficient, at minimum, to proceed on a quantum meruit theory for pre-termination services and expenses.


Want v. Century Supply Co., 508 S.W.2d 515 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)