Does this contract need to be in writing to be enforceable in Louisiana?
Only for a few specific categories: otherwise an oral contract is enforceable, but proving it gets harder as the value rises. Louisiana's general default sits inside its evidence-of-contract articles rather than a single statute-of-frauds chapter: art. 1846 addresses ordinary oral contracts by PRICE OR VALUE, not by subject matter: "When a writing is not required by law, a contract not reduced to writing, for a price or, in the absence of a price, for a value not in excess of five hundred dollars may be proved by competent evidence. If the price or value is in excess of five hundred dollars, the contract must be proved by at least one witness and other corroborating circumstances." The Louisiana Supreme Court applied this exact corroboration requirement to an alleged five-year oral employment contract in Read v. Willwoods Community, framing the question as "We must determine whether Mr. Read sustained his burden of proving the existence of an oral contract for a limited term of five years pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1846.", and answering it against the employee: the Court reversed the judgment in his favour because "the other corroboration must come from a source other than the plaintiff," and his having left a prior job "does not constitute sufficient proof to corroborate the existence of a fixed-term employment contract." The Court’s own conclusion was that "Mr. Read failed to meet his burden of proving the existence of an oral contract for a limited term of five years pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1846", that "The jury’s finding on this issue was clearly wrong", and that he was therefore "an at-will employee who could essentially be terminated at any time." Separately, TWO categories genuinely do require a writing: art. 1832, "When the law requires a contract to be in written form, the contract may not be proved by testimony or by presumption, unless the written instrument has been destroyed, lost, or stolen," and art. 1839 for immovable property, "A transfer of immovable property must be made by authentic act or by act under private signature. Nevertheless, an oral transfer is valid between the parties when the property has been actually delivered and the transferor recognizes the transfer when interrogated on oath."
The trap
Article 1846's over-$500 rule is not a writing requirement at all. It is an EVIDENTIARY rule about how many kinds of proof an oral contract needs, and the corroborating-circumstances half is strict: the corroboration cannot come solely from the plaintiff's own testimony (Read, quoting Suire: "[t]he plaintiff himself may serve as the witness" but "the other corroboration must come from a source other than the plaintiff"), so a party who can only testify to his own version of an oral deal above $500 has not met the burden even with a genuinely credible witness (himself). Article 1839's oral-transfer exception for immovable property is narrower than it first appears: it validates an oral transfer "between the parties" only once the property has been ACTUALLY DELIVERED and the transferor admits the transfer under oath: a purely executory oral agreement to sell immovable property, with nothing yet delivered, gets no benefit from this exception and remains unenforceable without a writing. And art. 1839's second sentence is a trap running the other way: even a written, unregistered transfer of immovable property "shall have effect against third persons only from the time it is filed for registry in the parish where the property is located": a writing that satisfies the transfer requirement as between the parties may still be worthless against a third party (a subsequent purchaser, a creditor) until it is recorded.
8 authorities
- statuteLa. Civ. Code art. 1846enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
When a writing is not required by law, a contract not reduced to writing, for a price or, in the absence of a price, for a value not in excess of five hundred dollars may be proved by competent evidence. If the price or value is in excess of five hundred dollars, the contract must be proved by at least one witness and other corroborating circumstances.
- statuteLa. Civ. Code art. 1832enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
When the law requires a contract to be in written form, the contract may not be proved by testimony or by presumption, unless the written instrument has been destroyed, lost, or stolen.
- statuteLa. Civ. Code art. 1839enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
A transfer of immovable property must be made by authentic act or by act under private signature. Nevertheless, an oral transfer is valid between the parties when the property has been actually delivered and the transferor recognizes the transfer when interrogated on oath.
The words that state the rule
We must determine whether Mr. Read sustained his burden of proving the existence of an oral contract for a limited term of five years pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1846.
The words that state the rule
the fact that Mr. Read chose to leave his at-will employment with Capital One to accept the job at Willwoods does not constitute sufficient proof to corroborate the existence of a fixed-term employment contract.
The words that state the rule
In Suire, we explained that “[t]he plaintiff himself may serve as the witness to establish the existence of the oral contract. The ‘other corroborating circumstances’ need only be general in nature; independent proof of every detail of the agreement is not required. But, the other corroboration must come from a source other than the plaintiff.
- statuteLa. Civ. Code art. 1839enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
An instrument involving immovable property shall have effect against third persons only from the time it is filed for registry in the parish where the property is located.
The words that state the rule
After our review of the entire record, we hold that Mr. Read failed to meet his burden of proving the existence of an oral contract for a limited term of five years pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1846. There is no reasonable interpretation of the evidence in the record to find there was a meeting of the minds which would support the jury’s finding that Mr. Read and Willwoods entered into a five-year employment contract. The jury’s finding on this issue was clearly wrong. Because we find there is no fixed term employment contract, Mr. Read was an at-will employee who could essentially be terminated at any time. Thus, Mr. Read has no enforceable action under Louisiana law for damages for his dismissal. We therefore reverse the ruling of the court of appeal.
“Defective” means that reading found something to correct. What you are reading is the rule as it stands after that reading.