Sullivan v. Porter

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004 · Contracts

861 A.2d 625 (Me. 2004)

Updated July 26, 2026

ContractsStatute of FraudsPart PerformanceSpecific PerformanceOral Contracts for Sale of Landoral contractsale of landequitable estoppel

Facts

In August 2000, the Porters orally offered to sell Lakewood Farm to Sullivan and Andrews for $350,000, with a $20,000 down payment and owner financing at five to seven percent interest for twenty to thirty years, and Sullivan and Andrews accepted. The Porters then gave them possession of the property, accepted $3,000 toward the down payment, and repeatedly indicated that legal paperwork would be prepared. Sullivan and Andrews took possession, made extensive renovations to the farmhouse, barn, and grounds, and invested in starting a horse business on the property. Later, after an appraisal valued the property at less than the agreed price, Merval Porter demanded higher terms, and Sullivan and Andrews sued to enforce the original oral agreement.

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support finding an enforceable oral contract for the sale of land and, if so, whether the part performance doctrine removed that oral contract from the statute of frauds. The court also considered whether the trial court erred regarding jury instructions, the special verdict form, and the remedy of specific performance.

Rule

A transfer of real property without a written instrument may be enforced only if the party seeking enforcement proves by clear and convincing evidence that an oral contract exists and that an exception to the statute of frauds applies. Under the part performance doctrine, the party must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the parties entered into a contract, (2) that the party seeking enforcement partially performed the contract, and (3) that the performance was induced by the other party's misrepresentations, which may include acquiescence or silence. A contract exists if the parties mutually assent to all material terms and the agreement is sufficiently definite to allow the court to ascertain its meaning and fix the parties' legal liabilities.

🔒

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 Vermont, Elena Cruz orally agreed to buy a 40-acre orchard outside Burlington from Martin Keene for $420,000, with a $30,000 down payment and seller financing at 5% to 6% interest over 15 to 20 years. Martin gave Elena possession immediately, accepted $5,000 toward the down payment, watched her replace fencing and repair irrigation lines, and repeatedly told her his lawyer was preparing the paperwork.

If Martin later refuses to convey the orchard and raises the statute of frauds, which is the strongest argument for enforcing the oral agreement?

Explanation. A land-sale contract ordinarily must be in writing, but an oral agreement may be enforced if the party seeking enforcement proves by clear and convincing evidence both the contract's existence and an exception to the statute of frauds. Under the part performance doctrine, the required showing is: (1) a contract, (2) partial performance, and (3) inducement of that performance by the other party's misrepresentations, including acquiescence or silence. Here, possession, partial payment, substantial improvements, and repeated assurances about paperwork strongly support enforcement.