Negotiations between Dave and Mary resulted in the following agreement: Dave would sell his property to Mary for the sum of $150,000, closing date to be August 10, 2011. When the two completed their discussion, Mary paid Dave $5,000 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 the agreement because all of the consideration was not paid.
B) Mary cannot enforce the agreement because she had not paid Dave all of the money.
C) Mary can enforce this contract if the receipt specified the part payment was for the property in question.
D) Mary cannot enforce this contract because the contract was not in writing.
E) Mary cannot enforce this contract because the contract was not evidenced in writing.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

This contract was verbal and therefore falls under the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing. However, an exception to this requirement is the part payment provision, which allows for the enforcement of a verbal contract if there was partial performance, such as Mary paying $5,000 and receiving a receipt for the property. As long as the receipt specified that the payment was for the property in question, Mary can enforce the contract and sue Dave for breach. Therefore, choices A, B, D, and E are incorrect.

Negotiations Between Dave and Mary Resulted in the Following Agreement