Property

Brief

Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo

Procedural History:

• Lower court for Shaughnessy.
• Appealed from an order denying motion for a new trial.

Facts:

• Plaintiffs leased Eidsmo a dwelling house pursuant to an oral agreement.
• It was for a term of one year with the option to purchase at the end of the year lease.
• Plaintiffs sought to exercise their option to purchase after the one year lease had ended.
• They demanded a contract for the deed as promised.
• Plaintiffs fully performed their part of the option agreement and have at all times been ready, willing, and able to execute a contract for the deed.
• Defendant however alleges that the plaintiffs have done nothing to exercise any option, but that they merely asked him for a written lease and not a contract deed.

Issue:

• Are the oral agreements within the statute of frauds?

Holding:

• Affirmed for Shaughnessy.

Reasoning:

• The acts of taking possession and of making part payment, when they are performed under or in reliance upon the oral contract as to be unequivocally referable to the vendor-vendee relationship and not referable to any other relation between the parties, are sufficient to remove the contract from the statute of frauds.
• The two essential elements of possession and part payment are present.
• There was dominant intent of the parties from the inception of their transaction that a purchase and sale relation should be established upon the expiration of the lease term.
• The conduct of the parties indicated no misunderstanding as to the nature of their transaction and the relation that each bore to the other.