Part performance for land contracts: Part performance by the purchaser may remove the need for a writing if acts such as possession, payment, or improvements unequivocally indicate the existence of a contract.

Part performance for land contracts: Part performance by the purchaser may remove the need for a writing if acts such as possession, payment, or improvements unequivocally indicate the existence of a contract.

• A. Possession alone is sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement.
• B. Payment alone is sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement.
• C. Part performance by possession, payment, or improvements may remove the need for a writing if acts unequivocally indicate the existence of a contract.
• D. The writing requirement cannot be avoided.

Answer: (C)

Part performance acts as an exception to the writing requirement for contracts involving land. The idea is that when the buyer has acted in a way that clearly shows there was a contract, the law will enforce the agreement even without a written document. The key is “unequivocally indicate,” meaning the conduct must clearly refer to the contract’s existence, not just be ordinary actions. That’s why the best choice allows for either possession, payment, or improvements to satisfy the rule if these acts, taken together or in a way that unmistakably points to a contract, demonstrate its existence. It isn’t enough to have possession alone or payment alone in most cases; the acts must be clearly indicative of a contract. The option also captures that the number and combination of acts can matter (possession plus payment, possession plus improvements, etc.), rather than requiring a single act. The other formulations are too narrow or incorrect: possession alone or payment alone typically aren’t sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement, and saying the writing requirement can never be avoided ignores the well-established part-performance exception.

Part performance acts as an exception to the writing requirement for contracts involving land. The idea is that when the buyer has acted in a way that clearly shows there was a contract, the law will enforce the agreement even without a written document. The key is “unequivocally indicate,” meaning the conduct must clearly refer to the contract’s existence, not just be ordinary actions.

That’s why the best choice allows for either possession, payment, or improvements to satisfy the rule if these acts, taken together or in a way that unmistakably points to a contract, demonstrate its existence. It isn’t enough to have possession alone or payment alone in most cases; the acts must be clearly indicative of a contract. The option also captures that the number and combination of acts can matter (possession plus payment, possession plus improvements, etc.), rather than requiring a single act.

The other formulations are too narrow or incorrect: possession alone or payment alone typically aren’t sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement, and saying the writing requirement can never be avoided ignores the well-established part-performance exception.