negated appellant’s claim of a one-year sales agency agreement. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for trial. FROST, J. dissenting. 1 . The contract provided that the appointment for the "entire State of Texas was temporary until such time as the Company finds a permanent Agent for the Northern Texas area of Dallas, Ft. Worth.” 2 . Although the record does not conclusively show the sales agency agreement could not be performed in the space of one year, both parties seem to assume the agreement would be governed by the statute of frauds. Accordingly, we assume, without deciding, that the agreement must satisfy the requirements of that statute to be enforceable. See Winograd v. Willis, 789 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). FROST, Justice, dissenting. The majority
holding that contract capable of being performed within 365 days of execution not within statute of frauds 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 recognizing circumstances that justify enforcement of a promise unenforceable under the statute of frauds holding that the language of the statute is mandatory and the commission must act within 180 days holding that full performance takes a contract outof the statute of frauds