C.R. KLEWIN, INC. v. FLAGSHIP PROPERTIES, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A developer orally promised a construction company a long-term contract for a massive project. The court held the oral agreement was enforceable, finding the Statute of Frauds only bars contracts that cannot possibly be performed within one year by their express terms, regardless of how improbable one-year performance may be.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a narrow, literal interpretation of the Statute of Frauds’ one-year provision. An oral contract of indefinite duration is enforceable because it does not, by its terms, make performance within one year impossible.
C.R. KLEWIN, INC. v. FLAGSHIP PROPERTIES, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, C.R. Klewin, Inc., and the defendants, Flagship Properties, Inc., entered into an alleged oral agreement for Klewin to serve as the construction manager for a large, multi-phase development project called ConnTech. The project was estimated to cost $120 million and take three to ten years to complete. The agreement was purportedly formed when a Flagship representative shook hands with Klewin’s agent and said, “You’ve got the job. We’ve got a deal.” The oral agreement did not specify a time for performance. The parties subsequently entered into a separate written contract for the first phase of the project. After completing the first phase, Flagship became dissatisfied with Klewin’s work and hired a different contractor for the next phase. Klewin sued for breach of the overall oral contract to manage the entire project. Flagship moved for summary judgment, arguing the oral contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds’ one-year provision because the project’s sheer scope made performance within one year impossible. The federal district court granted summary judgment for Flagship, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds render an oral contract unenforceable when the contract does not specify a performance duration, but its subject matter makes completion within one year highly improbable?
No. The oral contract is enforceable. An oral contract that does not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds render an oral contract unenforceable when the contract does not specify a performance duration, but its subject matter makes completion within one year highly improbable?
Conclusion
This decision significantly narrows the applicability of the one-year provision of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Legal Rule
An oral contract that does not expressly state that performance is to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit ess
Legal Analysis
The court adopted a narrow and literal interpretation of the Statute of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An oral contract that does not specify a time for performance