Schriftformerfordernis - Statute of Frauds
CK • Washington. Die Verletzung des Schriftformerfordernisses erfüllter Verträge berechtigt nicht zur Rückforderung von Leistungen.
Dies gilt auch für gesetzliche Erfordernisse, die im Kern dem uralten Statute of Frauds entsprechen, entschied das Bundesberufungsgericht des Hauptstadtbezirks in Sachen Hawa Construction LLC v. Pollock, Az. 09-1728. Am 18. Dezember 2009 führte es unter Verweis auf Präzedenzfälle aus:
Dies gilt auch für gesetzliche Erfordernisse, die im Kern dem uralten Statute of Frauds entsprechen, entschied das Bundesberufungsgericht des Hauptstadtbezirks in Sachen Hawa Construction LLC v. Pollock, Az. 09-1728. Am 18. Dezember 2009 führte es unter Verweis auf Präzedenzfälle aus:
"[w]e agree that the regulation requires such contracts to be in writing" but "because appellee Wolfrey had fully performed his part of the contract before filing suit, we hold that the regulation does not prevent Wolfrey from recovering what Thompson owes him." Thompson [v. Wolfrey], 483 A.2d at 637. The court explained:Wolfrey's claim against Thompson was not predicated on "home improvement work to be performed" but rather on work already completed. Wolfrey had fully performed under the oral contract, therefore section [808.1] does not render the oral contract unenforceable, and the trial court committed no error in entering a $300 money judgment in his favor.Id. at 638. The court found that the writing requirement in the home improvement regulations "is akin to a statute of frauds." Id. at n.6. "Courts have repeatedly reiterated that the Statute of Frauds only applies to executory, as distinguished from executed contracts; if an oral contract, otherwise within the Statute, is completely executed or performed, it is taken out of the operation of the Statute."
… ("We also note that the statute's intended use is as a defense rather than a basis for affirmative relief."); Hackney v. Morelite Constr., 418 A.2d 1062, 1066 (D.C. 1980). AaO 5, 6.