Nicol

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants’ first issue is whether “the District Court err[ed] in finding Appellants liable for the fraud of a third party where such liability was predicated on for [sic] breach of a gratuitous, alleged verbal contract.” However, the district court made no such finding. The district court’s finding in connection with Nicol’s fraud claim was that Foster was liable because of his own misstatements.

Appellants’ second issue is whether “the District Court err[ed] in finding that Appellants were principals in the purchase agreement between Villar and Nicol.” However, the district court, again, made no such finding. The only contract that the district court found was a contract between Nicol and Foster. The district court made no findings regarding the existence of a contract between Villar and Nicol.

Appellants’ third and fourth issues concern the statute of frauds. The third issue is whether the district court erred in ruling that the statute of frauds did not apply to the contract between Nicol and Foster. The fourth issue is whether the district court “err[ed] in ruling that there was an exception which excluded the application of the statute of frauds.” However,…