Predict whether a buyer who moved onto land under an oral agreement can force the sale. You have 90 minutes. To: Associate. Use the File and the Library only, then compare your draft with the rubric and the model answer below.
The assignment
To: Associate. From: Hassan Idris, Partner. Re: Voss v. Rennick. Our client, Marta Voss, says Peter Rennick orally agreed to sell her a 10-acre parcel for $80,000, and he now refuses to convey. Please write an objective memorandum predicting whether Ms. Voss can enforce the oral agreement despite the statute of frauds, and what remedy is likely. Use only the Library.
File
Client interview
In April, Mr. Rennick told Ms. Voss she could have the parcel for $80,000, with closing in October. She paid $8,000 in cash on April 20 and he gave her a handwritten receipt reading, 'Received $8,000 from Marta Voss toward land.' She moved a mobile home onto the parcel in May, dug a well for $6,000, and planted an orchard. Mr. Rennick saw the work and said nothing. In October he said a nephew offered $120,000 and he would not sell to her. She has $72,000 available and is ready to close.
The receipt
Received $8,000 from Marta Voss toward land. P. Rennick. April 20. The receipt does not describe the land or state a price.
Library
Statute of Frauds, section 3-101 (Franklin)
No contract for the sale of an interest in land is enforceable unless the contract, or a note or memorandum of it, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The memorandum must identify the parties, describe the land, and state the essential terms including the price. This section does not abridge the power of a court of equity to compel specific performance where there has been part performance.
Baird v. Fenwick, 33 Fr.2d 210 (Fr. Sup. Ct. 1971)
A buyer with an oral agreement took possession, made improvements, and paid part of the price. Held: specific performance was granted. Part performance takes an oral contract out of the statute if the buyer's acts are unequivocally referable to the contract, meaning they cannot be explained except by the agreement, and it would be a fraud on the buyer to allow the seller to rely on the statute. Possession alone or payment alone is not enough. Possession together with substantial improvements is strong evidence, and the seller's knowledge and silence supports the buyer.
Osgood v. Trent, 39 Fr.3d 66 (Fr. Ct. App. 2010)
A buyer paid $5,000 on an oral agreement but did not take possession or improve the land. Held: no enforcement. Payment of money is compensable by restitution, so it is not unequivocally referable to a land contract. The court held that a receipt that does not describe the land or state a price is not a sufficient memorandum. The buyer's remedy was a refund with interest.
What graders look for in this task
Graders score a response against these criteria, and every one of them depends on using only the facts in the File and only the rules in the Library, so treat the list as a check for your draft after the first pass and again before you stop writing.
States that section 3-101 requires a signed writing describing the land and stating the price
Finds the April 20 receipt insufficient under Osgood because it lacks description and price
Recognizes the equity exception for part performance
Applies Baird's requirement that acts be unequivocally referable to the contract
Relies on possession plus the mobile home, well, and orchard and on Mr. Rennick's silence
Distinguishes Osgood because Ms. Voss took possession and improved the land
Notes the $8,000 alone would be restitution
Predicts specific performance is likely, conditioned on paying the balance