Justice David Schmidt
Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against them by plaintiff in this action to recover damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff Chan alleged defendant Mui promised to pay Chan $200,000 for his business, and make Chan a 30 percent shareholder in Mui’s new bakery business. Chan argued Mui only paid $50,000 despite repeated demands for the balance, and has not made Chan a shareholder in the new bakery, as was mutually agreed. Defendants moved for dismissal. The court stated given the sharp divide revealed from the deposition testimony and affidavits of the parties’ understanding of the nature of the agreement, summary judgment dismissal was denied. Defendants claimed the alleged oral agreement violated the statute of frauds, but plaintiff claimed as there was no term of duration, the agreement was terminable at will, hence the statute of frauds had no bearing on the parties’ dispute. The court agreed finding as the agreement alleged by Chan did not contain any definite term of duration, it was not void under the statute of frauds. Also, it ruled issues of fact precluded summary judgment on Chan’s breach of contract claim, but granted it as to the fraud and misrepresentation causes of action.
