Cain v. Cross Facts: D agreed to sell land to P. P made a payment and was securing the rest of the money. D revoked the offer and sold the land to someone else. P is suing because he believed that he part performed on the contract. Issue: Was the single payment enough to have part performance and negate statute of frauds? Holding: No, Reasoning: In sell of land cases there needs to be something in writing. If not there can be verbal contracts that are enforced if there is part performance. However for part performance there needs to be more than just a tendered payment. The buyer has to take control of the land and improve it or make changes. C.R. Klewin, Inc v. Flagship Properties, Inc. Facts: Plaintiff, a construction company and defendant, a real estate company made an oral agreement for the construction of a major project. The first phase was completed within one year. After the first year defendants contracted with another construction company.
Issue: What is the meaning of "possible" in the context of the completion of performance within one year when an oral contract does not say in express terms that performance is to have a specific duration beyond one year?
Held: The "possibly" of complete performance must be determined by the express terms of the contract. If there is no specified duration the contract is outside the force of the statute of frauds. Reasoning: Here there was no duration determined in the contract. There are two ways to construe the word "possible": (1) Reasonable possible to be completed within one year, (2) Completion within one year consistent with the express terms of the contract. The destructive force of the statute of frauds should be narrowed rather than expanded. a contract must specify that the performance will extend one year for the application of the writing requirement. In absence of such a provision the statute of frauds does not apply