Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and D own abutting property on Lake Winnipesaukee. In April 1984, P filed petitions for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to enjoin D from constructing a building alleged to be in violation of a setback ordinance. Settlement negotiations ensued through respective counsel. D's counsel stated that D offered $115,000.00 for the purchase of his lot. The offer was to remain open until January 1, 1986, and would not be renewed at that price. The figure was not open to negotiation and was on a 'take it or leave it' basis. Further letters were exchanged but each indicated on its face that a copy was sent to D. Shortly after receipt of the second letter, P's attorney accepted D's offer. Upon D's direction, D's counsel prepared and forwarded to P's attorney a purchase and sale agreement. P signed but D had not. On February 3, 1986, D's counsel notified P's counsel that D had decided not to go forward with the agreed sale. P offered $130,000 for the real estate. Then P filed a motion to enforce settlement. The master concluded that there had not been compliance with the statute of frauds and that he 'must reluctantly recommend' that P's motion be denied. The statute reads as follows: 'Sale of Land. No action shall be maintained upon a contract for the sale of land unless the agreement upon which it is brought, or some memorandum thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged, or by some person authorized by him in writing.' This appeal followed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co