Moriarty interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and, hence, unenforceable. What result? Discuss.
Moriarty and Holmes enter into an oral contract by which Moriarty promises to sell and Holmes promises to buy Blackacre for $100,000. Moriarty repudiates the contract by writing a letter to Holmes in which she states accurately the terms of the bargain, but adds “our agreement was oral. It, therefore, is not binding upon me, and I shall not carry it out.” Thereafter, Holmes sues Moriarty for specific performance of the contract. Moriarty interposes the defense of the statute of frauds, arguing that the contract is within the statute and, hence, unenforceable. What result? Discuss.
The contract between Seller M and Buyer H to buy or sell a specific property was oral, but Seller M denied execute the contract in written form, which can act as a memorandum for the contract.
The written contract is considered as enforceable under the Statute of Fraud rule. This was followed by Seller M and Buyer H has the right to attain benefit of the contract.
The breach of an oral contract by writing a memorandum in the context of the oral contract leads to the enforceability of that contract, which was compiled by Seller M, under the Statute of Fraud rule. The execution of that specific contract should be done by Seller M.