Question

Case 7:

Burnett v. Putrell

, 1992 Ohio App. Lexis 3467.

Richard Burnett agreed to purchase a mobile home with a shed from Betty Jean Putrell,

Executrix of the Estate of Lena Holland. On Saturday, March 3, Burnett paid Putrell $6,500 and

was given the certificate of title to the mobile home as well as a key to it, but no keys to the shed.

At the time the certificate of title was transferred, the following items remained in the mobile

home: the washer and dryer, mattress and box springs, two chairs, items in the refrigerator, and

the entire contents of the shed. These items were to be retained by Putrell and removed by her.

To facilitate removal she retained one key to the mobile home and the only keys to the shed. On

Sunday, March 4, the mobile home was destroyed by fire through the fault of neither party. At

the time of the fire, Putrell still had a key to the mobile home as well as the keys to the shed and

she had not removed the contents of the mobile home or of the shed. The contents of the shed

were not destroyed and were subsequently removed by Putrell. Burnett brought suit against

Putrell to recover the $6,500 he had paid for the mobile home and shed.

TRUE OR FALSE WITH EXPLANATION:

1. Burnett’s purchase of the mobile home and shed from the estate of Lena Holland

is governed by common law contract principles.

2. Even though Putrell gave Burnett the certificate of title to the mobile home, the

estate of Lena Holland has the risk of loss of the mobile home, because the estate

of Lena Holland is not a merchant and the trailer was not placed at Burnett’s

disposal.

3. Because the sales price for the mobile home and shed exceed $500, the agreement

between Burnett and the estate of Lena Holland is governed by the Statute of

Frauds and cannot be enforced without a written memorandum containing the

essential terms signed by the Putrell as executrix.

4. The estate of Lena Holland has the risk of loss for the shed and its contents,

because Putrell retained the keys denying Burnett access to the shed.

5. Both Burnett and the estate of Lena Holland can assign their respective rights in

their contract to third parties.

Answer 1

1. Burnett’s purchase of the mobile home and shed from the estate of Lena Holland is governed by common law contract principles

• True as there was a contractual intention to buy the mobile home as well as a consideration involved.

2. Even though Putrell gave Burnett the certificate of title to the mobile home, the

estate of Lena Holland has the risk of loss of the mobile home, because the estate

of Lena Holland is not a merchant and the trailer was not placed at Burnett’s

disposal.

• False as the proper ownership of title has not been completely transferred to Burnett

3. Because the sales price for the mobile home and shed exceed $500, the agreement between Burnett and the estate of Lena Holland is governed by the Statute of Frauds and cannot be enforced without a written memorandum containing the essential terms signed by the Putrell as executrix.

• True, the deal qualifies under the Statute of Frauds and requires a written memorandum for execution

4. The estate of Lena Holland has the risk of loss for the shed and its contents,

because Putrell retained the keys denying Burnett access to the shed.

• True as the proper ownership of title has not been completely transferred to Burnett

5. Both Burnett and the estate of Lena Holland can assign their respective rights in their contract to third parties.

• False, the rights still remain reserved with Lena Holland as the complete transfer of ownership of title was not completed