5. In an appropriate action brought by the landowner against the friend for specific performance, if the landowner loses, the most likely reason will be that

A is correct. The question asks you to analyze why the court would rule against the landowner. This is essentially a hypothetical, asking you IF the court did something, WHY did they do it. To tackle a question like this, you have to look at all the answer choices and decide which scenario would make the hypothetical situation stated in the call occur. The Statute of Frauds mandates that any contract for the sale of land must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. In this case, the friend's reasons for refusing to close and the landowner's justifications for mandating performance are irrelevant because the sale contract was never memorialized in a writing. A land sale contract may never be oral, so this would be the reason the landowner loses.

Part performance that unequivocally indicates that the parties have contracted for the sale of land may remove the contract out of the Statute of Frauds. What constitutes sufficient part performance varies among jurisdictions. The majority requires at least two of the following: (i) payment (in whole or in part); (ii) possession; and/or (iii) valuable improvements. In this case, there was a partial payment, but not possession or valuable improvements. Therefore, the Statute of Frauds still applies to this case.

B is incorrect. The friend could sue for the entire value of the contract, or specific performance.

C is incorrect. Having a valid reason for closing would not be enough to overcome the breach of contract.

D is incorrect. The landowner remaining in possession of the property would not be enough to compel specific performance.