Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs entered into an oral lease agreement with the Defendant for one year. The Plaintiffs contended that Defendant gave them an option to purchase at the end of the term and stated that he would give them a deed, which he refused to do.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Where, acting under an oral contract for the transfer of an interest in land, the purchaser with the assent of the vendor takes possession thereof or retains possession thereof existing at the time of the bargain, and also pays a portion or all of the purchase price, the purchaser or vendor may specifically enforce the contract.” Restatement Contracts Section: 197.
Whether the acts of part performance are unequivocally referable to the vendor-vendee relationship under the oral contract is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
View Full Point of LawIssue. The Court stated two issues:
Were the findings of the trial court supported by the evidence?
Were the oral agreements involved within the statute of frauds?
Held. Yes to “a”, No to “b”. The trial court’s findings were correct, but the doctrine of part performance took the oral agreement outside the statute of frauds. Affirmed.
According to Restatement, Contracts, Section: 197, “Where, acting under an oral contract for the transfer of an interest in land, the purchaser with the assent of the vendor [ (a) makes valuable improvements on the land or] (b) takes possession thereof or retains possession thereof existing at the time of the bargain, and also pays a portion or all of the purchase price, the purchaser or vendor may specifically enforce the contract.”
In cases of part performance, no specific proof of irreparable injury through fraud is required.
The inadequacy of damages in presumed in cases involving breach of a contract for sale and purchase of any interest for land. There is no adequate substitute for specific performance.
The question of whether the facts of a case meet the elements of part performance is a question for the trier of fact. In this case, the trial court, concluded that the Plaintiffs had met the elements of part performance, and unless clearly erroneous, the trial court’s findings must stand.
Discussion. This case follows the restatement version of part performance. The oral agreement was within the statute of frauds, unless taken out by the doctrine of part performance. These cases are very fact-specific and the trial court’s findings are given deference by appellate courts.