Defendants' arguments, which the court found unpersuasive in Alloian's motion to dismiss, are not any more persuasive the second time around. Markarian's fraud claim stands.
III. Failure to State a Claim (Count II)
Garoogian is the only defendant named in Count II. Thus, the court did not previously consider the legal sufficiency of this count in connection with Alloian's motion to dismiss.
In Count II, Markarian asserts a claim for breach of an oral contract. Garoogian contends that Markarian's contract claim should be dismissed because the alleged contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds renders certain oral contracts unenforceable as a matter of law. According to Garoogian, the contract falls within the Statute of Frauds for two reasons: 1) the contract involves the sale of goods for $ 500 or more; and 2) the contract is not capable of being performed within one year from the date of formation.
Under § 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code (which supplies the Statute of Frauds for certain commercial transactions), "a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $ 500 or more" is voidable unless there is some writing which evidences the contract. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 26, para. 2-201(1) (1989). Markarian contends that this provision is inapplicable because the contract at issue did not involve the sale of "goods" within the meaning of the Code.
This court agrees. The contractual arrangement described in the complaint does not resemble a transaction in goods. Rather, the agreement is akin to a pure investment contract. Markarian agreed to invest a large sum of money in Garoogian's cold fusion invention in return for a share of the profits derived from the invention.
Pursuant to the contract, Markarian initially invested $ 1,650,000. For his part, Garoogian had to complete production of the invention and demonstrate that it actually worked. First Amended Complaint, para. 21. After Garoogian "conclusively" demonstrated that the invention could perform as represented, Markarian would raise an additional $ 8,350,000 for investment in the invention. In exchange for Markarian's investment, Garoogian promised that "Markarian would receive ten percent of the first $ 1,000,000,000 in royalties and other profits made by the invention and that one hundred percent of all royalties and profits thereafter would be divided among Markarian and all other investors." Id.
The terms of the contract as set forth in the complaint do not demonstrate that the parties bargained for a sale of goods. Markarian was essentially paying for Garoogian's purported expertise in developing the cold fusion invention and putting it into operation. The contractual relationship was based on Markarian's expectation of profits from Garoogian's efforts. There is no provision in the alleged contract for the transfer or sale of the invention itself. Garoogian did agree to disclose the "design and processes for making the invention"; but there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that he would relinquish his ownership rights or interest in the invention. It is apparent that disclosure of the design was not the primary object of the contract. With or without the design, Markarian was still relying on Garoogian's services to cultivate the invention and generate profits. The contract simply does not involve goods. The Statute of Frauds provision of the Uniform Commercial Code is therefore inapplicable.
Garoogian also argues that the contract is unenforceable under the broader, more general Statute of Frauds provision found in Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 59, para. 1 (1989). That provision encompasses several types of contracts, including "any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof." Id. Garoogian maintains that the contract described in the complaint is the type of agreement that cannot be performed within one year from its making. As Garoogian points out, the contract provides for the continuous distribution of income. The court believes that Garoogian's continuing obligation to account for profits and royalties does in fact render the contract incapable of full performance in the first year. See Kastner v. Gover, 19 A.D.2d 480, 244 N.Y.S.2d 275, 277 (1963), aff'd, 14 N.Y.2d 821, 200 N.E.2d 455, 251 N.Y.S.2d 472 (1964).
Despite the fact that the contract cannot be fully performed within one year, the Statute of Frauds does not preclude its enforcement because Markarian completely performed his part of the bargain when he paid $ 1,650,000 to Garoogian and Wilkinson. "When one party to a contract completes his performance, the one-year provision of the statute does not prevent enforcement of the promises of the other party." American College of Surgeons v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 142 Ill. App. 3d 680, 700, 491 N.E.2d 1179, 1193, 96 Ill. Dec. 719 (1986); see also Kozasa v. Guardian Elec. Mfg. Co., 99 Ill. App. 3d 669, 677, 425 N.E.2d 1137, 1144, 54 Ill. Dec. 920 (1981). Although the parties contemplated that $ 10,000,000 would ultimately be invested in the invention, Markarian was not obligated to raise the additional money if Garoogian failed to demonstrate that the invention performed as represented. Since Garoogian did not conduct a successful demonstration, the contract required him to return Markarian's initial investment of $ 1,650,000. First Amended Complaint, para. 21. Markarian had no further obligations under the contract. Having completely performed his part of the bargain prior to the alleged breach by Garoogian, Markarian may enforce the contract to get his money back. Thus, Markarian's contract claim withstands the motion to dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss of defendants Garoogian and Wilkinson is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.