Dan purchased the home identified by Pat and the following week Pat moved …show more content…
Although, Dan failed to respond to the question, he cashed the check. The note on the check, and the question, memorialized the transaction. Here because the Statue of frauds applies, the agreement had to be memorialized in writing or a suitable record made. The memorializing requires that the writing be signed by or on behalf of the party against whom enforcement is sought. It is likely that Pat’s signing of the check will provide evidence to the court that the contract between her and Dan did exist. Essentially, the document indicated that a contract had been made between the parties. In addition, it must state with reasonable certainty the essential terms of the unperformed promise. An agreement that falls within the statue of frauds must be signed by or on behalf of the party against whom enforcement is sought. An agreement may consist of several writings or records and only one need to be signed if the circumstances clearly indicated that the various writings relate to the same transaction.
Pat went to Dan with a check for $275,000 to convey the property over to her which he refused and ordered Pat out. In this case, in each instance, Pat performed to each element of the contract between her and Dan. Although, the initial agreement was made orally, she showed reliance upon the oral agreement by demonstrating reliance by taking possession and making improvements, as well as making payments, and