Connection lost
Server error
McINTOSH v. MURPHY Case Brief
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
tl;dr: An employee moved from California to Hawaii for a one-year oral job offer. After being fired, he sued. The court enforced the contract, finding the employee’s substantial reliance (moving 2,200 miles) created an exception to the Statute of Frauds defense to prevent injustice.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that significant, foreseeable reliance can make an oral contract enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds’ one-year provision, adopting the flexible, justice-based approach of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts to prevent unconscionable injury.
McINTOSH v. MURPHY 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
Defendant George Murphy, owner of a car dealership in Hawaii, interviewed plaintiff Dick McIntosh in California for a management position. Subsequently, on Saturday, April 25, 1964, Murphy’s general manager telephoned McIntosh and offered him a one-year position as assistant sales manager, to commence on Monday, April 27. McIntosh accepted. In reliance on this oral agreement, McIntosh moved his belongings 2,200 miles from Los Angeles to Honolulu, sold other possessions, leased an apartment, and forwent other employment opportunities. He began work as scheduled on April 27. Approximately two and a half months later, Murphy Motors terminated McIntosh’s employment. McIntosh sued for breach of the one-year oral contract. The defendants moved for a directed verdict, arguing the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it was an oral contract not to be performed within one year from its making. The trial court denied the motion, and a jury returned a verdict for McIntosh.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a party enforce a one-year oral employment contract that would otherwise be barred by the Statute of Frauds by invoking the doctrine of estoppel based on their substantial and foreseeable reliance on the agreement?
Yes. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. The court held that 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. Excep
IRAC Legal Analysis
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
Can a party enforce a one-year oral employment contract that would otherwise be barred by the Statute of Frauds by invoking the doctrine of estoppel based on their substantial and foreseeable reliance on the agreement?
Conclusion
This case is a leading example of a modern court using 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 nostrud exercitati
Legal Rule
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or 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 d
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment but on different legal grounds, 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 dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed d
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An oral contract for one year of employment is unenforceable under