Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 38 > Issue 6 (1940)
Action by P against D on an alleged oral promise to pay a debt owed to P by D's mother. P had agreed to discharge the mother from liability. There was no direct evidence that the mother was a party to the transaction. Apparently the defense was that D's promise was within the statute of frauds if the agreement to discharge was executory, or, if it was executed, that there was no consideration for D's promise because the discharge of D's mother was not legally binding since it was an accord and satisfaction with a third person. The trial court directed a verdict for D. Held, that the promise was not within the statute of frauds and that such a promise could be binding. The court said that, although a discharge by the creditor is not effective unless assented to by the debtor, the jury would have been warranted in inferring such assent from the circumstances here. F. I. Somers & Sons, Inc. v. LeClerc, (Vt. 1939) 8 A. (2d) 663.
W. W. Kent,
CONTRACTS - DISCHARGE - ACCORD AND SATISFACTION WITH A THIRD PERSON,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol38/iss6/12