Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Hurtubise v. McPherson - 80 Mass. App. Ct. 186, 951 N.E.2d 994 (2011)

Rule:

An agreement for a contract for the sale of lands or of any interest in or concerning them may be specifically enforced notwithstanding failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds if it is established that the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and on the continuing assent of the party against whom enforcement is sought, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement.

Facts:

In order to comply with the setback requirements of a local zoning ordinance, the plaintiff buyer approached the defendant seller and proposed a land trade. The seller agreed to the proposal and the parties shook hands. The seller silently watched as the buyer proceeded with his plans for construction of a building on the seller's property. Thereafter, when the seller threatened to demolish the building for failure to pay more than the amount to which the parties had originally agreed, the buyer brought suit for specific performance of the oral agreement. The trial court ordered the seller to complete the exchange of land will the buyer. The seller appealed, arguing that the Statute of Frauds, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 259, § 1, precluded enforcement of the parties’ oral agreement, and that the agreement was too indefinite for enforcement.

Issue:

Did the Statute of Frauds or the indefiniteness of the oral agreement bar enforcement of the same? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding, inter alia, that the buyer occupied a parcel of the seller's land and undertook the expense of construction in reliance upon the seller's apparent agreement. Because the seller watched the buyer's reliance unfold, he was estopped, by force of his silent acquiescence, which misled the buyer to his harm, from setting up § 1 as a bar to specific performance of the parties' oral agreement. Because the judge was able to reasonably infer the size and location of the parcels of land to be exchanged, indefiniteness did not prevent specific enforcement.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates