<b>Decision of Note</b> Statute of Fraud Bars Agency Counterclaim

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the statute of frauds barred a counterclaim alleging breach of an oral agency agreement by songwriter/performer Akon to pay the agency commissions and reimbursement of the musician's travel expenses. Thiam v. American Talent Agency Inc. (ATA), 11 Civ. 1465.

District Judge George B. Daniels observed: “ATA argues that, because it has fully performed its side of the bargain once it books Akon a performance or introduces Akon to a promoter who, in turn, books Akon to perform, the agreement is performable within one year.” But Judge Daniels found: “Instead, the agreement unambiguously provides that ATA's single act of introducing promoters to Akon would create Akon's indefinite obligation to pay commissions to ATA for any earnings on potential future performances booked with previously introduced promoters. Such an unlimited future obligation triggered by past introductions removes any possibility of performance within one year.”

The district judge added: “Because the Statute of Frauds bars the alleged oral agreement at issue, Defendants have also failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment on which relief can be granted.”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the statute of frauds barred a counterclaim alleging breach of an oral agency agreement by songwriter/performer Akon to pay the agency commissions and reimbursement of the musician's travel expenses. Thiam v. American Talent Agency Inc. (ATA), 11 Civ. 1465.

District Judge George B. Daniels observed: “ATA argues that, because it has fully performed its side of the bargain once it books Akon a performance or introduces Akon to a promoter who, in turn, books Akon to perform, the agreement is performable within one year.” But Judge Daniels found: “Instead, the agreement unambiguously provides that ATA's single act of introducing promoters to Akon would create Akon's indefinite obligation to pay commissions to ATA for any earnings on potential future performances booked with previously introduced promoters. Such an unlimited future obligation triggered by past introductions removes any possibility of performance within one year.”

The district judge added: “Because the Statute of Frauds bars the alleged oral agreement at issue, Defendants have also failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment on which relief can be granted.”