Twenty Acres, One Text Message
Gus owns a 40-acre farm. In an April 2 phone call he agrees to sell Hana "the north 20 acres with the barn" for $300,000, closing June 1. Nothing is signed that day. That evening Gus texts from his own cell phone: "North 20 for 300k, closing June 1 - will paper it later." Hana, with Gus's oral permission, immediately spends $45,000 grading a road and building a fence on the north 20 and moves her hay equipment onto that parcel. On May 20 Gus refuses to close, invokes the Statute of Frauds, and now claims the deal was for the south 20. Hana sues for specific performance. The text message is the only writing in the case, and Gus's attorney argues it is signed by nobody.
1. Does the text message satisfy the Statute of Frauds for a land sale?
Read the worked answer
Probably yes, but the analysis is not automatic and the reasoning must be shown.
A land sale requires a writing signed by the party to be charged (Gus), stating the parties, the subject matter, and the essential terms. The text supplies price, parcel, and closing date. The live question is the signature.
Under UETA and E-SIGN, an "electronic signature" is any sound, symbol, or process attached to a record with the intent to sign. Courts routinely treat a sender's name or telephone number in the header of a text as satisfying that requirement when the sender can be identified and the message is meant to memorialize the deal. Gus texted from his own number, referred to himself as the seller, and promised to "paper it later," which shows he intended the message as a record of the agreement.
A weak spot worth naming: there is no addressee, no salutation, and no name typed at the bottom. A strict court could balk. That is exactly why Hana should plead part performance in the alternative rather than resting on the text.
2. If the writing is insufficient, does the part-performance or estoppel doctrine save Hana?
Read the worked answer
Yes, and this is the stronger of her two theories.
Part performance. The classic test requires conduct that is unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement - typically payment, possession, and substantial improvements. Hana has two of the three: she took possession and made $45,000 of permanent improvements (a road and a fence). Payment of the price is not required where the other acts are sufficiently referable.
The referability point is doing the real work. Improvements made on the north 20 are consistent with the north-20 agreement and inconsistent with a south-20 deal. That is precisely what the doctrine demands: acts that would be unexplainable absent a contract for that parcel.
Estoppel is a viable fallback. If a court treats the text as satisfying the Statute, Hana gets specific performance, not just damages - land is unique. If the court finds the writing inadequate, part performance still supports specific performance. Note the asymmetry: estoppel typically supports reliance damages, while part performance supports the equitable remedy. Hana should ask for both in the alternative.
3. What does Gus's claim that the deal was for the south 20 do to the analysis?
Read the worked answer
It converts a legal question into a factual one, and it cuts against Gus.
The Statute of Frauds requires a description adequate to identify the land; it does not require a perfect legal description. "The north 20 acres with the barn" identifies a parcel on a 40-acre farm. Parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguity in a land description, so the phone call and the parties' conduct may be used to pin down the boundaries.
On the merits, Hana's conduct is decisive: she graded a road and built a fence on the north 20 with Gus's permission, and she moved equipment there. That is evidence of what the parties understood, and it is inconsistent with a south-20 deal. Gus's silence while $45,000 of improvements went in on the north parcel is telling.
Where Gus gains ground is if the description were so vague that no parcel could be located. "The north 20" is not that case. Gus's real defense is the signature, not the description - and a student who argues only the description issue has misread the problem.