This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: and said This ones for you, Puddin. After winning, Lyons did not share any of the winnings with Iacono, and denies ever saying she would. Iacono sued Lyons for breach of contract. History: The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, Lyons. Issue: Is this potential agreement unenforceable under the statute of frauds under the One-Year Provision? Decision: No. The trial courts decision was reversed and remanded. Reasons: The winnings were going to be paid over a period of 20 years; however, it is probable for the winnings to be paid over a period of one year. For example, if the Iacono and Lyons were to win $200, chances are they could have split the winnings immediately. As a result, the statue of frauds is not applicable to this situation....
View Full Document
- Spring '11