A seller agreed to give a buyer the first right to purchase the remainder of her property if she chose to sell it. When the seller became deceased, the buyer filed suit against the estate, seeking the option to purchase. The two parties entered into a settlement agreement that was disapproved by the probate court. After the probate court's disapproval, the parties continued to attempt to negotiate a sale. They then entered into a second settlement agreement that was never signed. The buyer took possession of the keys and property. The buyer then attempted to renegotiate a lower price. The estate filed suit to compel specific performance, and the district court granted the estate's request. The buyer challenged the order of the district court, which enforced an oral settlement agreement requiring that the buyer purchase the real estate, on the grounds that the statute of frauds precluded the enforcement of agreements that were not in writing or signed by both parties. On appeal the court applied the doc- trine of partial performance to its decision, stating that the doctrine of partial performance took the agreement outside the statute of frauds because the estate tendered possession of the property and the buyer took and retained possession, used the property, and never denied that the parties had reached an agreement. The court affirmed the district court's ruling. Do you agree with the argument of the appellate buyer or the argument of the state supreme court? Why?
Answer to relevant QuestionsThe plaintiff and defendant engaged in phone calls and e-mails that unambiguously indicated an intent to be bound to all necessary terms of a transaction. The district court recognized these recorded communications between ...Identify the exceptions to the parol evidence rule, and explain why some people might argue that the parol rule is not very effective. Explain the relationship between commercial impracticability and frustration of purpose. Treibacher, an Austrian vendor of hard-metal powders, agreed to two contracts with the defendant TDY to sell specified quantities of tantalum carbide (TaC), a hard-metal powder, to TDY Industries, Inc., for delivery to ...Grimberg sold a famous painting to Cohen for $785,000. Possession of the painting passed to Cohen but payment was never made. Despite various and sundry attempts to resolve the issue, Grimberg never received payment or got ...
Post your question