Buffaloe v. Hart

441 S.E.2d 172 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a tobacco farmer. P rented barns from Ds for use in his tobacco farming operations during the 1988 farming year. The agreement was not reduced to writing and was based on a 'handshake, oral' agreement. Ds agreed to provide insurance coverage for the barns in 1988. On 20 October 1988, P paid the $2,000.00 rent owed for the barns and the $992.64 owed to D for the tobacco rent. P began negotiating several days later about purchasing the barns. P offered to pay $20,000.00 for the five barns in annual installments of $5,000.00 over a four-year period, with no interest payments. The offer was made face to face and Ds accepted the offer, and both parties shook hands. P already had possession of the barns under the rental agreement. P did not remove the barns from Ds' land because he agreed to farm their land in 1989 with tobacco he rented from Ds. P applied for a loan with Production Credit Association in order to pay for the barns. P's loan was denied. P and D then reconfirmed that P was to pay four yearly installments of $5,000.00 for the barns. P was unsuccessful in obtaining insurance coverage for the barns. Ds again agreed to provide insurance for the five barns for 1989 if P would reimburse them for the cost. P promptly reimbursed them for the insurance coverage. P decided to sell the barns. The ads he ran resulted in sales. P received a $500.00 check dated 22 October 1989 as a down payment from Mr. Mohorn for two of the barns after quoting a price of $8,000.00 each. Mr. Stainback met with P, informed him that he would take two barns, and Mr. Elliot would take one. Mr. Stainback wrote plaintiff a check for $1,000.00 dated 25 October 1989, representing a deposit on the three barns. D called P in the fall of 1989 and asked if he could 'straighten up with her,' and he 'told her it would be in the next two or three days' and that he was going to sell the barns. P delivered a check in person to her for the first $5,000.00 due Ds. When P gave her the check, she asked him if he wanted a receipt, but he said: 'no, the check would be the receipt.' The next night D called him and told him 'she didn't want to sell [him] the barns; she'd already sold them' to somebody else. P received a letter, postmarked 26 October 1989, with the check in it all torn up. P later discovered that Ds sold the five barns to 'the same guys' P had agreed to sell them to. P sued D. Ds denied the existence of the contract and contended the alleged contract was unenforceable because it violated the statute of frauds. At the close of P's evidence, Ds moved for a directed verdict which was denied. Ds told a different story and affirmed the initial contract but then stated that P modified the contract but had failed to get a loan. P wanted to entice Ds back to the original deal with a $5,000 check, but they did not accept the offer. The jury awarded plaintiff damages of $21,000.00. Ds filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict which was denied. The issues presented are whether a personal check signed by plaintiff, describing the property involved and containing an amount representing partial payment is sufficient to constitute a writing under the statute of frauds; and there is substantial relevant evidence that plaintiff 'accepted' the barns and defendants 'accepted' plaintiff's check, taking the contract out of the statute of frauds.