Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 9-506 (2026)

Original obligations — Writing not needed. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Original obligations — Writing not needed. 

A promise to answer for the obligation of another, in any of the following cases, is deemed an original obligation of the promisor, and need not be in writing:

1.  Where the promise is made by one who has received property of another upon an undertaking to apply it pursuant to such promise; or by one who has received a discharge from an obligation in whole or in part, in consideration of such promise.
2.  Where the creditor parts with value, or enters into an obligation, in consideration of the obligations in respect to which the promise is made, in terms or under circumstances such as to render the party making the promise the principal debtor, and the person in whose behalf it is made, his surety.
3.  Where the promise, being for an antecedent obligation of another, is made upon the consideration that the party receiving it cancels the antecedent obligation, accepting the new promise as a substitute therefor; or upon the consideration that the party receiving it releases the property of another from a levy, or his person from imprisonment under an execution on a judgment obtained upon the antecedent obligation; or upon a consideration beneficial to the promisor, whether moving from either party to the antecedent obligation, or from another person.
4.  Where a factor undertakes, for a commission, to sell merchandise and guarantee the sale.
5.  Where the holder of an instrument for the payment of money, upon which a third person is, or may become, liable to him, transfers it in payment of a precedent debt of his own, or for a new consideration and in connection with such transfer, enters into a promise respecting such instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: Mickelsen Constr., Inc. v. Horrocks, 299 P.3d 203 (Idaho 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mickelsen Constr., Inc. v. Horrocks, 299 P.3d 203 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 158× “§ 9-505, and, as the district court appears to have concluded, the Complaint was adequate to invoke the provisions of I.C. § 9-506. I have a concern that the practicing bar may interpret our holding as stepping back to a degree from our previous decisions on notice pleading.”
Campbell v. Parkway Surgery Ctr., LLC, 354 P.3d 1172 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 28× “(2) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in section 9-506, Idaho Code. Idaho Code section 9-506 lists exceptions to the general rule that agreements must be in writing to be enforceable.”
Beaupre v. Kingen, 710 P.2d 520 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 8× “§ 9-505(2) are contained in I.C. § 9-506, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: 9-506.”
Chacon v. Sperry Corp., 723 P.2d 814 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 4× “While I fully appreciate that the majority opinion pays lip service to the far earlier existence of I.C. § 9-506, such does not obviate my criticism, but in fact serves to heighten it.”
Marjorie Ellmaker v. Calvin Tabor, 377 P.3d 390 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 9× “On appeal, this Court agreed, stating: After Kennedy and his former associate in [the corporation] divided the assets of that corporation and ‘split the deal and some of the larger accounts we split,’ Kennedy used these assets taken from [the corporation] in his own business.”
SRM Arms, Inc. v. GSA Direct, LLC, 494 P.3d 744 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 2× “” This includes “[a] special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in section 9-506, Idaho Code.” I.C. § 9-505(2).”
Washington Fed. Sav. v. Van Engelen, 289 P.3d 50 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 9-505(2); I.C. § 9-506 (exceptions). Modifications to a contract may fall within the statute of frauds.”
USA Fertilizer, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, 815 P.2d 469 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 9-506 provides: A promise to answer for the obligation of another, in any of the following cases, is deemed an original obligation of the promis- or, and need not be in writing: 3.”
M.T. Deaton & Co. v. Leibroce, 759 P.2d 905 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Ill Leibrock and Fouladpour argue that the obligation on the first cause of action was not their original obligation, but rather the obligation of the dissolved corporation, H & V.”
Treasure Valley Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Earth Resources Co., 766 P.2d 1254 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 9-506. Ordinarily, the determination of whether an oral promise constitutes a collateral or an original obligation is a question of fact.”
Johnson Cattle Co. v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, 716 P.2d 1376 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Our holding makes it unnecessary to determine whether this case might fall within the purview of I.C. § 9-506(3), which allows enforcement of an oral promise to answer for the debt of another if the promisor obtains a direct benefit.”
Hergert v. Bank of the West (In Re Hergert), 275 B.R. 58 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2002). “861, 866 (1999) (addressing UCC § 9-506, Official Comment 2). 1 . For additional clarity, the Court notes that the Debtors do not dispute the creation of security interests as described in the documents.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 9-506(2) — 1 case
Mickelsen Constr., Inc. v. Horrocks, 299 P.3d 203 (Idaho 2013). “§ 9-505, and, as the district court appears to have concluded, the Complaint was adequate to invoke the provisions of I.C. § 9-506. I have a concern that the practicing bar may interpret our holding as stepping back to a degree from our previous decisions on notice pleading.”
— Idaho Code § 9-506(3) — 4 cases
Campbell v. Parkway Surgery Ctr., LLC, 354 P.3d 1172 (Idaho 2015). “(2) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in section 9-506, Idaho Code. Idaho Code section 9-506 lists exceptions to the general rule that agreements must be in writing to be enforceable.”
Mickelsen Constr., Inc. v. Horrocks, 299 P.3d 203 (Idaho 2013). “§ 9-505, and, as the district court appears to have concluded, the Complaint was adequate to invoke the provisions of I.C. § 9-506. I have a concern that the practicing bar may interpret our holding as stepping back to a degree from our previous decisions on notice pleading.”
USA Fertilizer, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, 815 P.2d 469 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). “Idaho Code § 9-506 provides: A promise to answer for the obligation of another, in any of the following cases, is deemed an original obligation of the promis- or, and need not be in writing: 3.”
Johnson Cattle Co. v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, 716 P.2d 1376 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986). “Our holding makes it unnecessary to determine whether this case might fall within the purview of I.C. § 9-506(3), which allows enforcement of an oral promise to answer for the debt of another if the promisor obtains a direct benefit.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.