Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
29. Who is likely to prevail?
Sixty days later, the landlord refused to tender the deed to the building when the tenant tendered the $250,000 purchase price. The tenant has sued for specific performance.
In response, the landlord emailed the tenant: «That's fine. We'll close in 60 days.» The landlord's name was placed below the word «signed» on the reply message.
A landlord leased a building to a tenant for a term of six years. The lease complied with the statute of frauds and was not recorded. During the lease term, the tenant sent an email to the landlord that stated: «I hereby offer to purchase for $250,000 the building that I am now occupying under a six-year lease with you.» The tenant's name was placed below the word «signed» on the message.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. A contract to convey the building could be made during the lease term or thereafter. The email exchange satisfied the Statute of Frauds, the contract was valid, and the tenant is entitled to specific performance.
B is incorrect. The Statute of Frauds does require a signature by the party against whom enforcement is sought. However, courts are liberal regarding the nature of a signature; it need only reflect an intent to authenticate the writing. Both the tenant's and the landlord's names were placed below the word «signed,» which adequately reflected their desire to be bound. The other requirements of the Statute of Frauds were also met: the writings identified the parties and the property, expressed an intent to buy and sell, and contained a price term.
C is incorrect. Attornment is not an issue in this case, because it is the tenant who wants to purchase the property. The tenant is likely to prevail, but it is because there was a valid contract of sale. The exchange of emails satisfies the Statute of Frauds, because the writings identified the parties and the property, expressed an intent to buy and sell, and contained a price term and adequate signatures.