Hickey v. Green (1982) (Statute of Frauds)

a.       Facts- Π and Δ agreed on a sale of land. Π gave Δ a deposit for the land, then Π sold his own house based on the contract with Δ. Δ then refused to go through with the sale to Π, Δ never deposited Π’s deposit check.

b.      Procedural History- Remanded

c.       Issue- Whether a party’s part performance in reliance of an oral contract to purchase real property makes the contract enforceable

d.      Holding- Yes, a party’s part performance in reliance of an oral contract created an enforceable contract

                                                              i.      Ct ordered specific enforcement

e.       Rule- An exception to the SOF is when a party acts in reliance of an oral agreement. Part performance allows specific enforcement when particular acts, such as paying a deposit, have been done by one of the parties.

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Δ knew that Π was going to sell their own property b/c they were buying Δ’s property.

                                                            ii.      Π’s were specifically relying on the oral agreement

                                                          iii.      The KEY of this case is that the Πs TOLD the Δ that Π were planning on selling their own house and planned to build on Δ’s land…. Δ had knowledge…this increased the “reliance” factor

                                                          iv.      You can’t put yourself in a bad position specifically to trigger the SOF

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      2 parts required for sale:

1.      Contract

a.       agreement that closing will happen

b.      some provisions in the contract may NOT be guaranteed to the buyer after closing

c.       if property is NOT as advertised…it must be done BEFORE closing

2.      Closing

                                                            ii.      SOF

1.      SOF minimums:

a.       Document must identify both parties

b.      State purchase price

c.       Identify sale price

d.      Contains the signature of the party to be bound

e.       Restatement allows the parties to be “reasonably” identified…not necessarily by name

2.      We shouldn’t allow a purchase such as real estate to be bound by a “handshake”

3.      Purpose of SOF is to prevent deceitful claims from being enforced

a.       Ex. “No, we agreed on 50K…not 30K”

4.      2 Exceptions to SOF- “there’s a contract that exists that LOOKS like UNenforceable…but, b/c of certain acts, it actually IS enforceable”

a.       Part Performance- In order to establish “part performance”, it must be shown that the ONLY reason this performance was done was in reliance of the underlying contract. Part Performance PROVES that a contract EXISTED

b.      Estoppel- Injury would result from denying enforcement of the oral contract after one party has changed their position in reliance to the contract