What was the result in Heritage Constructors, Inc. v. Chrietzberg Electric, Inc. and Richard Marc Chrietzberg, the case in the text in which the plaintiff, a general contractor, filed a breach of contract action against the defendant, an electrical subcontractor that withdrew its bid right before the contract was to be performed? The defendant claimed the agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds and that the general contractor’s breach of contract claim was barred.
Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed because, although none of the writings mention plaintiff, oral testimony was admissible to supply an essential term of the agreement.
Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed because the writings along with oral testimony were sufficient to satisfy the status of frauds.
Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because none of the writings mention plaintiff or identify plaintiff as a party to the contract, and oral testimony was necessary to supply an essential term of the agreement, and thus they are insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.
Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the oral agreement was unenforceable because there was no writing.
Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed since no writing was required because the agreement did not come within the statute of frauds.