Depugh v. Mead Corporation

607 N.E.2d 867 (1992)

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

On July 13, 1990, Ps filed a complaint naming D as the defendant and setting forth claims of relief for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. On September 1, 1989, the parties entered into a contract whereby Ps agreed to grant D a license and right to enter upon and use property owned by Ps to excavate, remove, and purchase up to 225,000 cubic yards of clay. D agreed to pay $100,000 and further agreed to restore, seed, and mulch the property, construct a gravel road on the property, and construct a lake on the property. Ps incurred expenses in obtaining surveys, site plans, and title searches. D failed to comply with any part of the contract. D filed an answer that denied any contract and asserted that Ps' breach of contract claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds. No written agreement concerning the purchase was signed by D and no representative of D received a written deed or note signed by Ps' assigning or granting to D any interest in any land owned by them. P claimed there was a verbal contract. A 'BORROW AGREEMENT' stated that 'Ps desires to sell and D desires to excavate, remove and purchase clay from the Property to be used as a cover to seal Mead's Paint Street landfill. ' In the agreement, Ps granted to D the license and right to enter upon and use the Property (and any easements and access rights relating thereto) to excavate, remove, and purchase Borrow and to restore, seed, and mulch the Property as provided herein until such operations are completed. All restoration shall be completed within six months after completion of the removal of the Borrow. Ps agreed to sell up [to 225,000 cubic yards of Borrow to D so that D may cover the Paint Street landfill. D was to pay a lump sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 100,000.00) for any and all Borrow removed up to 225,000 cubic yards. The Agreement was a requirements contract. The 'BORROW AGREEMENT' provided that D would: (1) remove obstructions and construct a gravel road prior to excavation of any clay; (2) stockpile topsoil during the excavation of borrow underneath the topsoil; (3) leave a lake within the borrow area; and (4) replace, seed and mulch the area. The 'BORROW AGREEMENT' was not signed by anyone. The court ruled in favor of D. The proposed agreement involved the sale of an interest in Ps' real property and since it had not been reduced to writing, was unenforceable by virtue of the Statute of Frauds. Ps appealed.