Moriarity and Holmes enter into an oral contract by which Moriarity promises to

Question

Moriarity and Holmes enter into an oral contract by which Moriarity promises to sell and Holmes promises to buy Blackacre for $100,000. Moriarity repudiates the contract by writing a letter to Holmes in which she states accurately the terms of the bargain, but adds “our agreement was oral. It, therefore, is not binding upon me, and I shall not carry it out.” Thereafter, Holmes sues Moriarity for specific performance of the contract. Moriarity interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and, hence, unenforceable. What result? Discuss

Explanation / Answer

Judgement will be in favor of Holmes. Statute of Frauds requires that a contract worth more than $ 500 be in writing. Although the original contract between Moriarity and Holmes was oral. However, by writing a letter and stating in it the terms of the oral contract, she fulfilled the requirements of statute as the letter served as a memorandum of understanding between the two. Therefore, the contract is now enforceable and Holmes is entitled to specific performance, because of land being a unique commodity.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.