International Law

Written Contract Requirement of Arizona Sales Representative Law Not a Statute of Frauds

This posting was written by John R. F. Baer of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C, author of CCH Sales Representative Law Guide.

The Arizona Sales Representative Contract Law?s requirement of a written contract is not a statute of frauds, the federal district court in Phoenix has ruled.

The absence of a written contract did not preclude a claim by a sales representative under the law. The law was designed to protect sales representatives, and the burden was on the principal to prepare a written contract, according to the court.

The legislature, at least initially, did not intend to create a statute of frauds, since having a written contract was optional in the original statute.

The court found nothing in the legislative history to support a conclusion that the legislature intended, by adding the writing requirement in 2006, to fashion a statute of frauds that would prevent a sales representative from recovering unless there is a writing, the court held.

The decision is Armored Group, LLC v. Supreme Corp., CCH Sales Representative Law Guide ¶10,334.

Further information regarding the CCH Sales Representative Law Guide appears here.

Full post as published by Trade Regulation Talk on November 10, 2010 (boomark / email).