view rule in Montana

2017In Epletveit v. Solberg, 119 Mont. 45 , 169 P.2d 722 (1946), we explained this Court’s view of the exception: Where one party, to an oral contract has, in reliance thereon, so far performed his part of the agreement that it would be perpetrating a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract and to set up the statute of frauds in justification thereof, equity will regard the case as being removed from the operation of the statute and will enforce the contract by decreeing specific performance of it, or by granting other *171 appropriate relief.

2017In Epletveit v. Solberg, 119 Mont. 45 , 169 P.2d 722 (1946), we explained this Court’s view of the exception: Where one party, to an oral contract has, in reliance thereon, so far performed his part of the agreement that it would be perpetrating a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract and to set up the statute of frauds in justification thereof, equity will regard the case as being removed from the operation of the statute and will enforce the contract by decreeing specific performance of it, or by granting other *171 appropriate relief.

1960In the course of the opinion, in the Butigan ease, supra, the court at 320 P.2d 500, 504 , stated: “We are of the view that the rule applied in Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116 , 230 P.2d 823 [allowing an instruction as to “unavoidable accident”], should be reconsidered.

1960In the course of the opinion, in the Butigan ease, supra, the court at 320 P.2d 500, 504 , stated: “We are of the view that the rule applied in Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116 , 230 P.2d 823 [allowing an instruction as to “unavoidable accident”], should be reconsidered.

1960In the course of the opinion, in the Butigan case, supra, the court at 320 P.2d 500, 504 , stated: "We are of the view that the rule applied in Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116 , 230 P.2d 823 [allowing an instruction as to "unavoidable accident"], should be reconsidered.

1960In the course of the opinion, in the Butigan ease, supra, the court at 320 P.2d 500, 504 , stated: “We are of the view that the rule applied in Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116 , 230 P.2d 823 [allowing an instruction as to “unavoidable accident”], should be reconsidered.

1937Law, 390, 166 Atl. 83 .) The weight of authority, and we think the better reasoned cases, support the view that a claim filed before the acceptance may be made the foundation of an action. *219 This brings us to the vital question in the case: Whether there had been an acceptance of the work more than fifteen days before the claims were filed within the meaning of section 5668.44.

1912In Dakota County v. Cheney, 22 Neb. 437 , 35 N. W. 211 , and in Casey v. Burt County, 59 Neb. 624 , 81 N. W. 851 , the supreme court of Nebraska adopted the view that the rule of strict construction should be applied to such legislation.

1912In Dakota County v. Cheney, 22 Neb. 437 , 35 N. W. 211 , and in Casey v. Burt County, 59 Neb. 624 , 81 N. W. 851 , the supreme court of Nebraska adopted the view that the rule of strict construction should be applied to such legislation.

1912In Dakota County v. Cheney, 22 Neb. 437 , 35 N. W. 211 , and in Casey v. Burt County, 59 Neb. 624 , 81 N. W. 851 , the supreme court of Nebraska adopted the view that the rule of strict construction should be applied to such legislation.

1905The effect of this language may be comprehended by considering the authorities supporting the doctrine of said instructions numbered 3 and 4, as well as the limitations of the words “dealer’s talk” or “seller’s praise.” Mr. Biddle, in Warranties in the Sale of Chattels, says: “It has also been stated above [referring to said section 35] that a warranty must be a statement of a fad upon which the buyer relies in making his purchase; consequently, words of description, or certain vague expressions of opinion, made by the seller, as to the quality or value of his goods, or for the simple commenda

1904(Lafferty v. Conn, 3 Sneed, 221 ; Lloyd v. Anglin's Lessee, 7 Yerg. 428 .) But in the absence of such a provision in the statute itself, the preponderance of authority is in favor of the view that the requirement as h> notice is directory only, and that the failure to observe it does not avoid the sale as against a purchaser who is himself free from fault. (2 Freeman on Executions, 2d Ed., Sec. 286; Smith v. Randall, 6 Cal. 47 , 65 Am.

1904Dec. 475 ; Blood v. Light, 38 Cal. 649 , 99 Am.