Negotiations between Dave and Mary resulted in the following agreement: Dave would sell his property to Mary for the sum of $150,000 with the closing date to be August 10. When the two completed their discussion, Mary paid Dave $5000 as part payment of the purchase price and received a receipt. The contract was not in writing. On August 10, Mary tendered the remainder of the money, but Dave refused to convey the property. Mary sued Dave for breach of contract. On these facts, which of the following is true? (Assume all facts can be proved.)
A) Mary cannot enforce this contract because the contract was not in writing.
B) Mary cannot enforce this contract because the contract was not evidenced in writing.
C) Mary can enforce this contract if the receipt specified the part payment was for the property in question.
D) Mary cannot enforce the agreement because all of the consideration was not paid.
E) Mary cannot enforce the agreement because she had not paid Dave all of the money.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts, including those for the sale of real estate, to be in writing to be enforceable. However, part performance, such as a partial payment for the property, can serve as an exception to this rule if it unequivocally indicates that a contract exists. If the receipt Mary received specifies that the $5000 payment was for the property, it could serve as sufficient evidence of the contract's existence and terms, allowing Mary to enforce the contract despite the lack of a formal written agreement.

Negotiations Between Dave and Mary Resulted in the Following Agreement