EstatePass
ContractsStatute_of_fraudsMEDIUM

Carlos verbally agrees to sell his Boston condominium to Diana for $650,000. They shake hands and Diana immediately pays a $10,000 good-faith deposit to Carlos directly, which he accepts. No written contract is ever signed. Two weeks later, Carlos refuses to proceed with the sale and returns the $10,000 deposit. Diana sues for specific performance. Under Massachusetts law, which of the following best describes the likely outcome?

Correct Answer

A) Diana will likely not prevail because under MGL Chapter 259, the contract for sale of real property must be in writing and signed to be enforceable, and returning the deposit eliminates unjust enrichment claims.

Under MGL Chapter 259, Section 1, a contract for the sale of real property must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged to be enforceable. Because no written contract was ever signed, the oral agreement between Carlos and Diana is unenforceable under the Massachusetts Statute of Frauds. Since Carlos returned the $10,000 deposit, Diana has no unjust enrichment claim either. Massachusetts courts generally do not apply the part-performance doctrine to override the Statute of Frauds for specific performance claims absent extraordinary equitable circumstances, and the mere payment and return of a deposit is insufficient to establish such circumstances.

Answer Options
A
Diana will likely not prevail because under MGL Chapter 259, the contract for sale of real property must be in writing and signed to be enforceable, and returning the deposit eliminates unjust enrichment claims.
B
Diana will likely not prevail because condominium sales in Massachusetts require additional written disclosures under MGL Chapter 183A before any contract can be enforceable.
C
Diana will likely prevail because an oral contract for the sale of real property is enforceable in Massachusetts when both parties clearly agreed on price and property.
D
Diana will likely prevail because Carlos accepted the deposit, which constitutes part performance sufficient to remove the contract from the Statute of Frauds.

Why This Is the Correct Answer

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Deep Analysis of This Contracts Question

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Background Knowledge for Contracts

Sign up free to unlock full analysis
Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Real World Application in Contracts

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Common Mistakes to Avoid on Contracts Questions

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Related Topics & Key Terms

Key Terms:

statute_of_fraudsoral_contractpart_performancespecific_performanceMGL_259condominium

Related Concepts

A purchase agreement is a legally binding contract between a buyer and seller that outlines the terms and conditions for the sale of real property. It is also commonly called a sales contract, purchase and sale agreement, or earnest money agreement.

Specific performance is a court-ordered remedy that compels the breaching party to fulfill their obligations under the contract rather than simply paying monetary damages. It is an equitable remedy used when monetary damages would be inadequate.

The Statute of Frauds is a legal requirement that certain types of contracts must be in writing and signed to be enforceable. In real estate, all contracts for the sale of land or interests in land must be in writing.

Was this explanation helpful?

More Contracts Questions

People Also Study

Related Articles

Contracts Questions

Practice More Questions

Access 2,000+ practice questions and pass your real estate exam.

Start Practicing