Brief Fact Summary. the contention of the Beavers (P) who had orally agreed to sell land to the Brumlows (D) reneged on the agreement on the ground that the statute of fraud prevented specific performance of the agreement because the part performance of the Brumlows (D) was not “unequivocally referable” to the verbal agreement, of which the verbal agreement was not certain as to the purchase price and time of performance.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. the statute of fraud does not bar the specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land, where the terms of contract other than the purchase price have been proved, part performance to the agreement by both parties have occurred, the part performance refers unequivocally to the sale of the land through possession and the making of improvements and a remedy of law would not be adequate.
Issue. Does statute of fraud bar the specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land, where the terms of contract other than the purchase price have been proved and part performance to the agreement by both parties have occurred, where part performance refers unequivocally to the sale of the land through possession and the making of improvements and a remedy of law would not be adequate?
Held. (Vigil, J.) No. the statute of fraud does not bar the specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land, where the terms of contract other than the purchase price have been proved, part performance to the agreement by both parties have occurred, the part performance refers unequivocally to the sale of the land through possession and the making of improvements and a remedy of law would not be adequate. Actions on contracts for the sales of land or interests in land are generally barred by the statute of frauds where there has been no written agreement for the sale, authenticated by the party to be charged or the party’s proxy.
The doctrine of part performance-applied to overcome the rigidity and injustice that might result from a liberal and mechanical application of the rule-stipulates that where a verbally non-binding under the statute of frauds has been performed to an extent as to make it not equitable to deny effect thereto, the contract may be considered as removed from the point of view of equity, from the workings of the statute of frauds and decree specific performance. This however is a judicially created exception. In this case, the agreement between the parties is not the issue because it is uncontestable or even that the parties partially performed. The primary issue which was disputed by the Beavers (P) was in connection to the application of the part performance doctrine which is the character of the Brumlows (D) performance was not sufficiently indicative of a verbal agreement to sell land to qualify as partial performance.
Part performance must thereby be referable to the contract for the fulfillment of the part performance doctrine. This implies that, it must be proved that there was no other reason for the performance than performance under the contract. According to the Beavers (P), the Brumlows (D) actions was consistent with those taken by a person who needs a place to live and who is given a chance to reside on another person’s property. The argument of the beaver was that if there is an alternative explanation for the conducts exhibited in reliance of the verbal contract, those actions are not “unequivocally referable” to the contract, and it is not proper to apply the part performance doctrine. This argument is rejected. The “unequivocally referable” concept implies that an outsider, knowing all the circumstances of a case excluding the claimed verbal agreement, would instinctively and reasonably conclude that a contract was formed regarding the land, of the same general nature as that purported by the claimant. This does not mean that outside the contract, there cannot be other reasonable explanation for the part performance. This implies that for conclusion to be reached that the contract alleged actually exists, the performance must be able to lead an outsider “naturally and reasonably.”
Taking possession of the property and making valuable, permanent, and substantial improvement to the property are two indicators of performance. Looking at these two indicators, Brumlows (D) fulfilled both. Hence, Brumlows (D) part performance and reliance on agreement constituted enough ground to take the verbal agreement outside of the statute of frauds. The Brumlows (D) also contended the purchase price which the trial court imposed on them to which they never agreed even when the court ordered that the purchase price would be established by an appraisal and gave a time frame of 30days for which the terms of payment was to be settled in cash. It can be seen from precedent that a claim for the specific performance of a contract which involves a land will not fail for failure to specify a contract is other complete and it can be verified that there have been part performance of the contract by the transfer of possession.
In this type of situations, inequality is avoided by a reasonable price that is implied by equity. The Brumlows (D) reliance on the contract which was complete, worked to their detriment after they had taken possession and improved the property. Therefore, the trial court was not wrong in the discharge of its equitable powers by ordering that the purchase price be arrived at by an independent appraisal at fair market value and this determination of the purchase price was not disputed by the Beavers (P). Also, equity may supply a reasonable time for performance where a closing date has not been agreed to. Finally, the Brumlows (D) did not have remedy at law because land is unique and it is assumed to have special value not replaceable in money. The ruling was therefore affirmed.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the legislature intended by the language used in that section to adopt the common law, or lex non scripta, and such British statutes of a general nature not local to that kingdom, nor in conflict with the constitution or laws of the United States, nor of this territory, which are applicable to our condition and circumstances, and which were in force at the time of our separation from the mother country.View Full Point of Law