Answer: Yes, Bo would be entitled to recover his $1,000 payment plus the $150 cost of clearing the land. He has the option to rescind his contract. Also, Sadia had knowledge and consent that Bo was going to had Lot No. 2 cleared of brush. Therefore, he should be able to get the money back for the cost of clearing the land.
(g) Assume that on March 1. Bo instituted a suit for specific performance and that Sadia denied she had agreed to sell. At the trial, the court decided that Bo was telling the truth, and ordered Sadia to execute and deliver to Bo a deed to Lot. No. 2 upon Bo paying the balance of $74,000. Is Sadia entitled to have the decision reversed on appeal, if on the appeal Sadia raises for the first time the defense that her agreement was not in a writing signed by the party to be charged? Explain. …show more content…
It’s because an oral agreement for land is enforceable if there is partial performance. Sadia accepted the $1,000; therefore, it is an indication that the buyer has paid part of the price and a partial performance has taken place. No signed writing is needed for a specific performance.
10. Assume that in the preceding problem Sadia had sent to Bo a receipt for the $1,000 reading as follows: "January 11. Received from Bo $1,000 on account of $75,000 purchase price of Lot No. 2 at 27 Y Street. Albans, NY Closing in 4 weeks. (Signed) Sadia."
(a)Would Bo be entitled to a decree of specific performance against Sadia? Explain.
Answer: Yes, Bo would be entitled to a decree of specific performance against Sadia. Under the Statute of Fraud, if there is a contract for the sale of a property such as Lot No. 2, there must be writing in order for to be enforceable. Because Sadia put the agreement they had in writing and signed it, Bo has the authority to buy Lot No. 2 from Sadia.
(b)Assume that Sadia is willing to perform, but that Bo refuses. Would Sadia be entitled to damages against Bo?
(g) Assume that on March 1. Bo instituted a suit for specific performance and that Sadia denied she had agreed to sell. At the trial, the court decided that Bo was telling the truth, and ordered Sadia to execute and deliver to Bo a deed to Lot. No. 2 upon Bo paying the balance of $74,000. Is Sadia entitled to have the decision reversed on appeal, if on the appeal Sadia raises for the first time the defense that her agreement was not in a writing signed by the party to be charged? Explain. …show more content…
It’s because an oral agreement for land is enforceable if there is partial performance. Sadia accepted the $1,000; therefore, it is an indication that the buyer has paid part of the price and a partial performance has taken place. No signed writing is needed for a specific performance.
10. Assume that in the preceding problem Sadia had sent to Bo a receipt for the $1,000 reading as follows: "January 11. Received from Bo $1,000 on account of $75,000 purchase price of Lot No. 2 at 27 Y Street. Albans, NY Closing in 4 weeks. (Signed) Sadia."
(a)Would Bo be entitled to a decree of specific performance against Sadia? Explain.
Answer: Yes, Bo would be entitled to a decree of specific performance against Sadia. Under the Statute of Fraud, if there is a contract for the sale of a property such as Lot No. 2, there must be writing in order for to be enforceable. Because Sadia put the agreement they had in writing and signed it, Bo has the authority to buy Lot No. 2 from Sadia.
(b)Assume that Sadia is willing to perform, but that Bo refuses. Would Sadia be entitled to damages against Bo?