Business Law
Assignment Week 2 – Yoleida Villalobos
14.2 Real Property
Robert Briggs and his wife purchased a home located at 167 Lower Orchard Drive, Levittown, Pennsylvania. They made a down payment and borrowed the balance on a 30-year mortgage. Six years later, when Mr. and Mrs. Briggs were behind on their mortgage payments, they entered into an oral contract to sell the house to Winfield and Emma Sackett if the Sacketts would pay the three months’ arrearages on the loan and agree to make the future payments on the mortgage. Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Sackett were sisters. The Sacketts paid the arrearages, moved into the house, and continued to live there. Fifteen years later, Robert Briggs filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation of the Statute of Frauds and evict the Sacketts from the house. Who wins? Briggs v. Sackett, 275 Pa. Super. 13, 418 A.2d 586, Web 1980 Pa.Super. Lexis 2034 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania).
Facts
The Briggs purchased a home at 167 Orchard Drive in Levittown, Pennsylvania. Six years later the Briggs were three months behind on the mortgage payments. The Briggs entered into an oral contract to sell the house to the Sacketts if the Sacketts would pay their late mortgage and continue to pay their mortgage. The Sacketts paid the late mortgage, moved in and continued to pay the mortgage while living in the house. Fifteen years later Robert Briggs files to void the contract.
Legal Issues
The legal issue presented by Robert Briggs is an action to void an oral real estate contract because it violates the Statute of Frauds. While, the Statute of Frauds does indeed require real estate contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable, the Statute of Frauds does not apply to Briggs v. Sackett as the specifics of this case warrant an exception from the Statue of Frauds under the equitable doctrine of part performance.
Applicable Laws
The equitable doctrine of part performance allows the court to enforce an oral real estate contract
14.2 Real Property
Robert Briggs and his wife purchased a home located at 167 Lower Orchard Drive, Levittown, Pennsylvania. They made a down payment and borrowed the balance on a 30-year mortgage. Six years later, when Mr. and Mrs. Briggs were behind on their mortgage payments, they entered into an oral contract to sell the house to Winfield and Emma Sackett if the Sacketts would pay the three months’ arrearages on the loan and agree to make the future payments on the mortgage. Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Sackett were sisters. The Sacketts paid the arrearages, moved into the house, and continued to live there. Fifteen years later, Robert Briggs filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation of the Statute of Frauds and evict the Sacketts from the house. Who wins? Briggs v. Sackett, 275 Pa. Super. 13, 418 A.2d 586, Web 1980 Pa.Super. Lexis 2034 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania).
Facts
The Briggs purchased a home at 167 Orchard Drive in Levittown, Pennsylvania. Six years later the Briggs were three months behind on the mortgage payments. The Briggs entered into an oral contract to sell the house to the Sacketts if the Sacketts would pay their late mortgage and continue to pay their mortgage. The Sacketts paid the late mortgage, moved in and continued to pay the mortgage while living in the house. Fifteen years later Robert Briggs files to void the contract.
Legal Issues
The legal issue presented by Robert Briggs is an action to void an oral real estate contract because it violates the Statute of Frauds. While, the Statute of Frauds does indeed require real estate contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable, the Statute of Frauds does not apply to Briggs v. Sackett as the specifics of this case warrant an exception from the Statue of Frauds under the equitable doctrine of part performance.
Applicable Laws
The equitable doctrine of part performance allows the court to enforce an oral real estate contract
References: Cheeseman, Henry R. (2010). Business Law: Legal Environment Online Commerce, Business Ethics and International Issues. (Seven Edition) New Jersey, NJ. Pearson Prentice Hall Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Bear Stearns & Co. (retrieved November 4, 2011) http://scocal.stanford.edu Fullerton, James D. (nd) Uniform Commercial Code Sale of Goods. (Retrieved November 4, 2011) http://www.fullertonlaw.com