Question

Tom owned a house set on 1 acre of land that he wanted to sell when he retired in April, 2013. On April 1, 2012, Mary and Tom orally agreed that Mary would purchase Tom's house and 1 acre of land for $350,000 cash on April 15, 2013. In the meantime, Mary and Tom agreed that Tom would continue to own and live on the property.   On April 15, 2013, Mary presented Tom with a cashier's check for $350,000 for the house and Tom transferred the deed to the house and land to Mary in her name. Mary and Tom properly filed all the documents necessary for the closing on the real estate sale.

Mary and Tom had also agreed previously that Tom could remain on the property following the closing of the sale on April 15, 2013 until April 17, 2013 to give him time to move out. On April 17, Tom refused to move out claiming that their oral agreement for sale of the property was invalid and unenforceable under the Statue of Frauds.

In this case, could Mary argue that by the fact that Tom signed and transferred the deed to her; that this was sufficient writing to satisfy the statute of frauds?

Answer 1

SOLUTION:-

* In this case, Mary could definitely argue that Tom signed and transferred the deed to her. Another question is that whether this writing was sufficient to satisfy the statue of frauds.

* Yes, here statue of frauds has not only been satisfied by writing by performance.

* The statue of fruads in writing states that their should be writing document and must be signed by both parties and should satisfy any one of the justifications such as - their must be evidence that a contract exists, shows the matter of contract, shows what aterial things have been transferred.

* Hence in this case, their is a deed which is signed by both partes and as the documents must include selling of the house and land.

* Thus therefore this does satisfies the statue of frauds.

* Next, this also satisfies statue of frauds by performance as Mary moved into Tom's house and stayed their and Tom after two days objected, and also took payment from Mary, Thisclarifies that their must have been an oral contract or agreement between them about the possession of property.

THANK YOU, if any queries please leave your valuable comment on comment box....

If possible please rate the answer as well.......