Cited by

[¶23] Whether the statute of frauds applies to an agreement “is a question of law that we review de novo,” Byblos Corp. v. Salem Farm Realty Trust, 141 N.H. 726, 729 (1997), while “[w]hether an agreement complies with the statute of frauds is a mixed question of law and fact,” Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, 140 N.H. 173, 176 (1995).

[¶8] Following trial, the district court examined whether the statute of frauds applies based upon the jury’s findings.

"In determining the actual understanding and intent of the parties, the trier of fact should consider the objective meaning of the expressed contract terms."

For instance, in Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, a decedent made an oral promise to bequeath a farm and motel to his four children in return for the children’s agreement to work, unpaid, on the same property.

A valid, enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and a meeting of the minds.

Offer, acceptance, and consideration are essential to contract formation.

Harrison v. Watson, 116 N.H. 510, 511 (1976) (stating that contracts may be established by spoken or written words or by acts or conduct); see also Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, 140 N.H. 173, 178 (1995) (noting that contractual offers may be accepted by performance).

The letter appears to contain the essential elements of a contract — offer, acceptance, consideration and a meeting of the minds.

Offer, acceptance and consideration are essential to contract formation.

The underlying facts are fully set forth in Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, 140 N.H. 173, 663 A.2d 1335 (1995).

Because the contract issue is pending before the federal court, which will have the benefit of a complete factual record, see Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, 140 N.H. 173, 177-78, 663 A.2d 1335, 1339 (1995), an advantage we do not currently enjoy, we decline at present to offer any opinion on whether the rate agreement constitutes a binding contract.

If the lost commission is a proper measure of the plaintiff’s damages, the trial court must determine “the actual understanding and intent of the parties” concerning the amount of that commission.

A party may accept a contract by performance or conduct.

Ill Whether the trial court correctly concluded that the statute of frauds did not apply to this settlement agreement is a question of law that we review de novo.

The question of whether a “meeting of the minds” occurred is a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact, provided there is some evidence on which to base such a finding.

The issue is thus waived for purposes of appellate review.

Therefore, we will only reverse if the trial court improperly applied the statute of frauds to its findings.