## Facts

- A seller of farm machinery sold a used Allis-Chalmers HD-5G tractor under a conditional sales contract to Russell, payable in monthly installments.
- Russell immediately fell behind on the installment payments.
- After discussions among the seller, Russell, and Yarbro, Yarbro made oral assurances that he would make or help make Russell’s payments and paid at least one installment.
- Yarbro tendered additional checks toward delinquent installments, but at least two were returned for insufficient funds.
- When the seller threatened repossession, Yarbro repeatedly promised payment from expected proceeds (real estate escrows and crop revenue), but payments were not made.
- The seller delayed repossession during negotiations; repossession was ultimately completed in January 1959.
- The seller sued Russell and Yarbro for the unpaid balance; Russell defaulted, and the trial court held Yarbro liable for the full remaining balance.
- Evidence indicated Yarbro had attempted to purchase the tractor himself but could not obtain financing, arranged for Russell to buy it, and used or benefited from the tractor’s continued availability.

## Issues

1. Whether Yarbro’s oral promises to pay Russell’s contract debt were barred by the Statute of Frauds as a promise to answer for the debt of another.
2. Whether the “leading object” (main purpose) exception applied because Yarbro’s primary purpose was to protect his own immediate pecuniary interest.
3. Whether the seller’s forbearance from repossession constituted sufficient consideration to enforce Yarbro’s oral promise.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the judgment holding Yarbro liable for the unpaid contract balance.
- The court held the Statute of Frauds did not bar enforcement because Yarbro’s promise fell within the leading-object (main-purpose) exception.
- The court found sufficient consideration in the seller’s forbearance from repossessing the tractor while relying on Yarbro’s assurances.

## Legal Principles

- A promise that appears to answer for another’s debt is outside the suretyship provision of the Statute of Frauds when the promisor’s main purpose is to secure a personal, immediate, and pecuniary benefit.
- The Statute of Frauds targets “collateral” promises (true suretyship) rather than “original” promises arising from a transaction undertaken at the promisor’s instance and for the promisor’s benefit.
- Forbearance from exercising contractual remedies, including delayed repossession in reliance on a promise to pay, can supply consideration supporting an enforceable promise.

## Conclusion

An oral commitment to pay another’s conditional-sales debt was enforceable where the promisor arranged the transaction to obtain the equipment’s benefit and sought to prevent repossession for his own economic advantage, and where the seller’s forbearance provided consideration; the judgment against the promisor for the unpaid balance was affirmed.


Yarbro v. Neil B. McGinnis Equip. Co., 101 Ariz. 378, 420 P.2d 163 (Ariz. 1966)