Part performance may remove the writing requirement for land contracts if acts unequivocally indicate the existence of a contract.

Part performance may remove the writing requirement for land contracts if acts unequivocally indicate the existence of a contract.

• A. Part performance by possession, payment, or improvements is insufficient to remove the writing requirement.
• B. Part performance by possession, payment, or improvements may remove the need for a writing if such acts unequivocally indicate the existence of a contract.
• C. Past payments alone are enough to satisfy the writing requirement.
• D. The writing requirement can never be avoided.

Answer: (B)

Part performance acts as an exception to the writing requirement for contracts involving land. If the conduct—such as possession, payment, or improvements—unambiguously shows that a contract for the sale of land exists, the law may enforce the agreement even without a signed writing. The crucial point is unambiguous evidence. The acts must clearly indicate that a land sale contract was formed, not merely be compatible with some other arrangement. When the holder has taken possession, paid part of the price, and/or made substantial improvements, and those actions leave no reasonable doubt that a contract exists, the writing requirement is satisfied by the conduct. Past payments alone are not enough to meet this standard, and the rule is not that the writing requirement can never be avoided. The option that reflects the correct idea is that part performance may remove the writing requirement if the acts unequivocally indicate the contract’s existence.

Part performance acts as an exception to the writing requirement for contracts involving land. If the conduct—such as possession, payment, or improvements—unambiguously shows that a contract for the sale of land exists, the law may enforce the agreement even without a signed writing.

The crucial point is unambiguous evidence. The acts must clearly indicate that a land sale contract was formed, not merely be compatible with some other arrangement. When the holder has taken possession, paid part of the price, and/or made substantial improvements, and those actions leave no reasonable doubt that a contract exists, the writing requirement is satisfied by the conduct.

Past payments alone are not enough to meet this standard, and the rule is not that the writing requirement can never be avoided. The option that reflects the correct idea is that part performance may remove the writing requirement if the acts unequivocally indicate the contract’s existence.