stating that “[i]f a defendant admits that an oral contract was made, then under § 622.35 or under § 554.2201(3)(b) the contract is as good and enforceable as if scribed on parchment”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[i]f a defendant admits that an oral contract was made, then under § 622.35 or under § 554.2201(3)(b) the contract is as good and enforceable as if scribed on parchment”
- court held under either general statute of frauds or statute of frauds contained in Uniform Commercial Code, oral contracts are not prohibited; if objection is interposed, they are merely unprovable unless exception applies
- promissory estoppel may defeat both UCC and general Statute of Frauds as both are only rules of evidence
- promissory estoppel applies to the statute of frauds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Warder & Lee Elevator, Inc. v. Britten, 274 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1979).