Question

A seller agreed to give a buyer the first right to purchase the remainder of her property if she chose to sell it. When the seller died, the buyer filed suit against the estate, seeking the option to purchase. The two parties entered into a settlement agreement that was disapproved by the probate court. After the probate court's disapproval, the parties continued to attempt to negotiate a sale. They then entered into a second settlement agreement that was never signed. The buyer took possession of the keys and property. The buyer then attempted to renegotiate a lower price. The estate filed suit to compel specific performance, and the district court granted the estate's request. The buyer challenged the order of the district court, which enforced an oral settlement agreement requiring the buyer to purchase the real estate, on the grounds that the statute of frauds precluded the enforcement of agreements that were not in writing or signed by both parties. On appeal, the court applied the doctrine of partial performance to its decision, stating that the doctrine of partial performance took the agreement outside the statute of frauds because the estate tendered possession of the property and the buyer took and retained possession, used the property, and never denied that the parties had reached an agreement. The court affirmed the district court's ruling.

[Simek v. Tate, 231 P.3d 891, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 68.]

Do you agree with the argument of the appellate buyer or the argument of the state supreme court? Why?

Answer 1

I agree with the argument put forth by the State Supreme Court because the facts of the case proved that there existed an oral agreement between the two parties and if such an agreement was not to be put in force, the buyer should have denied the existence of such an agreement at the first place. Rather, after the possession of the property taken by the Estate, the Buyer took the same and retained the possession, thereby indicating that the buyer was ready to pay the price that was negotiated earlier. As a result, the Buyer was ought to perform his part of duty by paying the negotiated amount to the Estate. The oral agreement was enough for the Estate to ensure that the Buyer buys the property in the renegotiated value as oral agreements could be enforceable contract in this case, since the Buyer took the keys of the property and started dwelling in the same. Had the Buyer not been in agreement with the renegotiated value of the property, he could have challenged the same instead of dwelling there. Therefore, I go with the State Supreme Court’s verdict.