Oral Contract
Gunn challenged what he called a core claim in the case, Voskerician’s allegation that Zuckerberg is bound through an oral contract to his promise of referrals.
The verbal agreement was so opaque that it’s unenforceable, Gunn told the judge.
“Was Mr. Zuckerberg supposed to help the plaintiff build his project elsewhere?” Gunn asked. If so, “does that mean Mr. Zuckerberg was supposed to help him find other sites? Was Mr. Zuckerberg supposed to put in a good word for the plaintiff?”
Draper said there’s evidence in e-mail messages that Zuckerberg agreed to give Voskerician referrals.
“The fact of the matter is Mr. Zuckerberg didn’t do anything,” Draper argued, saying that amounts to a breach of the contract. “They just wanted to get rid of Mr. Voskerician.”
In her tentative ruling issued before the hearing, Lucas refused to dismiss the contract claim, saying the evidence shows the alleged agreement “is not so uncertain or indefinite so as to be rendered unenforceable.” She said she’ll issue a final decision later.
Sara Petersen Graves, a lawyer for Makan, and Gunn declined to comment on Thursday’s ruling.
The case is Voskerician v. Zuckerberg, 114CV264667, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (San Jose).