Radke v. Brenon

Supreme Court of Minnesota · Contracts

ContractsStatute of FraudsLand sale contractsSpecific performancestatute of fraudsmemorandumsale of landspecific performance

Facts

Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, bought a strip of land separating ten neighboring lots from a lake and sent plaintiff and the other neighbors a letter offering to sell each owner his portion at an equal share of the total cost, listed as $212 if all ten participated. Plaintiff orally accepted, and when two neighbors declined, the price rose to $262 under the equal-division formula stated in the letter; plaintiff agreed to that increase and later tendered payment through his attorney in exchange for a deed. Defendant admitted at trial that plaintiff agreed to buy, but after plaintiff's attorney sent notice holding a $262 check for delivery upon receipt of a deed, defendant sent a letter revoking the offer. Plaintiff sued for specific performance.

Issue

Whether the parties had a valid and enforceable contract for the sale of land despite the lack of a formal integrated written contract. More specifically, the issue was whether defendant's letter was a sufficient memorandum under Minnesota's statute of frauds to permit enforcement of the admitted oral contract.

Rule

Under Minnesota's statute of frauds, a contract for the sale of land is enforceable if there is a writing expressing the consideration and subscribed by the seller or the seller's lawfully authorized agent. A memorandum is sufficient when, in addition, it states expressly or by necessary implication the parties, the land involved, and the general terms and conditions of sale. In applying these requirements, the court may overlook technical defects where proof of the oral contract is clear and uncontradicted and enforcement will not subject the defendant to fraudulent claims.

🔒

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 Duluth, Owen Mercer bought a narrow shoreline strip behind six residential lots. He mailed Nora Patel, one of the lot owners, a letter offering to sell her "the segment behind your lot" for "an equal 1/6 share of my acquisition and survey costs," estimating that share at $4,000 if all six owners participated; his name was typewritten at the bottom. Two owners later declined, Nora orally agreed to pay the recalculated $6,000, tendered that amount through counsel, and Owen admitted at trial that they had agreed on the sale.

Is the writing likely sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds as to consideration?

Explanation. The majority held that a land-sale memorandum may sufficiently express consideration even when the final price differs from the figure first listed, so long as the writing supplies a definite formula for computing the amount. Here, the equal-share formula made the later $6,000 figure ascertainable by mathematical computation. Tender alone is not the key point; the sufficiency comes from the writing's expression of consideration and the clear proof of the oral contract. (Derived from Radke v. Brenon (n.d.).)