agreement from the statute of frauds given Cruikshank’s deposition testimony establishing the agreement was not capable of being performed in less than one year. Where an oral contract does not contain the performance terms, the contract’s duration may be implied from extrinsic evidence. Niday v. Niday, 643 S.W.2d 919, 920 (Tex.1982). If that evidence establishes the contract cannot be performed within one year, the oral contract violates the statute of frauds as a matter of law. Id. We accept as true Cruikshank’s own deposition testimony that the oral employment contract could not be performed within one year; therefore, the contract is not enforceable under the statute of frauds. See Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501, 504 (Tex.1998); Schroeder, 813 S.W.2d at 489 (<HOLDING>). To establish a cause of action for wrongful
holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding appellants deposition testimony that he believed his oral contract would exist for another eight to ten years was unenforceable pursuant to statute of frauds recognizing circumstances that justify enforcement of a promise unenforceable under the statute of frauds holding that a parol modification of a lease having two years to run reducing the amount of rent was unenforceable under the statute of frauds