Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Citation
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Parent Document
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1979-12-18
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
Full Text
1,096 charsThe statute of frauds is a legislative enactment designed to prevent the perpetration of fraud. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is a remedy from fraud, limited only by equitable principles. Without cavil, it was shown that the writing was not signed by the movant (the party charged) or by anyone for or on his behalf. Neither the writing nor the alleged oral agreement in and of itself manifests any reason for not measuring its enforceability by the statute of frauds. Respondents’ plea that movant was estopped from denying the existence of the alleged contract is quite different thafi charging movant with perpetrating a fraud on respondents or of taking some unlawful advantage of them. To apply the statute of frauds so as to estop the admission of the existence of the contract is something else. The statute of frauds does not lend itself to the issue of whether there is or is not a contract in existence. Its design and purpose is to prevent the enforcement of a contract unless, by reason of some exception, the statute of frauds would be found not applicable. Purcell v. Campbell,