Case Citation
Legal Case Name

C.R. KLEWIN, INC. v. FLAGSHIP PROPERTIES, INC. Case Brief

Supreme Court of Connecticut1991
220 Conn. 569 Contracts Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

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

General Brief
4 min read

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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

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
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 cil

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?