Written Contract Requirement of Arizona Sales Representative Law Not a Statute of Frauds

This posting was written by John R. F. Baer of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C, author of CCH Sales Representative Law Guide.

The Arizona Sales Representative Contract Law’s requirement of a written contract is not a statute of frauds, the federal district court in Phoenix has ruled.

The absence of a written contract did not preclude a claim by a sales representative under the law. The law was designed to protect sales representatives, and the burden was on the principal to prepare a written contract, according to the court.

The legislature, at least initially, did not intend to create a statute of frauds, since having a written contract was optional in the original statute.

The court found nothing in the legislative history to support a conclusion that the legislature intended, by adding the writing requirement in 2006, to fashion a statute of frauds that would prevent a sales representative from recovering unless there is a writing, the court held.

The decision is Armored Group, LLC v. Supreme Corp., CCH Sales Representative Law Guide ¶10,334.

Further information regarding the CCH Sales Representative Law Guide appears here.