Question

Robert and Jimmy enter an oral contract in which Robert agrees to sell Jimmy his house for $1 million. After they agree, and in anticipation of moving in, Jimmy has the house painted and has an addition built onto the house which he turns into a recording studio. Robert tries to get out of the deal by arguing that the contract was oral and, thus, invalid. Jimmy sues Robert for breach of contract

1. Per the Statute of Frauds, do Robert and Jimmy have a valid contract? Why or why not? (Describe the doctrine that applies to this case.)

2. What will the courts decide?

Answer both questions in at least two sentences each.

Answer 1

1. as per the statute of frauds, the contract is not valid as any contract involving real estate must be in writing to be enforceable.

But there is a situation in this contract which will change the outcome of the case. Jimmy's improvements made to the property in the anticipation of sale ,makes this contract enforceable.

2. Court will decide in favor of Jimmy.

As per the exception of performance under statute of frauds , this is an enforceable contract since jimmy did a part performance which is a prpof to the existence of oral contract of sale of land ,thus makes the whole contract enforceable in court.