Plaintiff and defendant exchanged several letters concerning six contiguous lots which defendant owned. In one letter plaintiff made an offer to purchase the lots which was declined by defendant. Plaintiff then requested defendant to name her price. She replied that they were worth at least $12,000 but made no offer to sell. Subsequently they orally contracted for sale of the lots for $11,000. As a down payment plaintiff gave defendant a $500 check which contained a notation that it was "to be applied on purchase of property on E. Central Ave., Albuquerque, N. M. . . ." Defendant indorsed and cashed the check and later signed and acknowledged a warranty deed granting the six lots to the plaintiff. Prior to delivery of the deed, defendant refused to complete the sale and attempted to refund the $500. In a suit for specific performance, plaintiff conceded that the check, by itself, was an insufficient memorandum because the subject matter of the contract was not adequately set forth. It was contended, however, that the check plus defendant's letters specifically describing the property constituted a sufficient memorandum. The lower court felt that the statute had been satisfied but denied equitable relief because of insufficient consideration. On appeal, held, affirmed. An oral contract within the Statute of Frauds cannot be proved by writings made prior to consummation of the contract. Pitek v. McGuire, (N.M. 1947) 184 P. (2d) 647.
Edward S. Tripp S.Ed.,
CONTRACTS--STATUTE OF FRAUDS--VALIDITY OF MEMORANDUM MADE PRIOR TO ORAL CONTRACT,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss4/11