Boone v. Coe

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913 · Contracts

ContractsStatute of FraudsLeasesstatute of fraudsoral leaselease to commence in futurereliance damagespart performance

Facts

Defendant allegedly made a verbal agreement in Kentucky leasing his Texas farm to plaintiffs for one year beginning when they arrived at the farm, and promised to have a dwelling ready and materials available for a barn. Relying on that agreement, plaintiffs left their homes and businesses in Kentucky and moved with their families, horses, wagons, and equipment to Texas. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to have the house ready, failed to furnish barn materials, and then refused to let them occupy the premises or cultivate the land. They sought damages for travel expenses, lost time, return expenses, and losses from abandoning their Kentucky homes and businesses.

Issue

May plaintiffs recover expenses and losses incurred in reliance on an oral lease agreement that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds? More specifically, can such reliance damages be recovered where defendant received no benefit from plaintiffs' performance?

Rule

An oral lease of land for one year to commence at a future date falls within the statute of frauds and is unenforceable unless in writing. No action for damages may be maintained for breach of such an unenforceable contract, and recovery in quasi-contract for part performance is allowed only when the defendant has actually received or will receive some benefit from the plaintiff's money, property, or services.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Louisville, Nora Ellis orally agreed with Daniel Pike that she would lease his Indiana warehouse for one year beginning on September 1, three months later. Before September 1, Daniel repudiated, and Nora sued for the profits she expected to earn from using the warehouse.

Under the governing rule, what is the strongest argument for Daniel?

Explanation. A parol lease for one year to begin at a future date falls within the statute of frauds. Under the majority rule, no action for damages may be maintained for breach of such an unenforceable agreement, because that would indirectly enforce the barred contract.