MGMT 597 Week 2 Assignment:
Cases 14.2, 16.10, 18.2, 20.3
Ifeyinwa Onyekwena
Keller Graduate School of Management 14.2 - Real Property Robert Briggs and his wife purchased a home located at 167 Lower Orchard Drive, Levittown, Pennsylvania. They made a down payment and borrowed the balance on a 30-year mortgage. Six years later, when Mr. and Mrs. Briggs were behind on their mortgage payments, they entered into an oral contract to sell the house to Winfield and Emma Sackett if the Sacketts would pay the three months’ arrearages on the loan and agree to make the future payments on the mortgage. Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Sackett were sisters. The Sacketts paid the arrearages, moved into the house, and continued to live there. Fifteen years later, Robert Briggs filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation of the Statute of Frauds and evict the Sacketts from the house. Who wins? Briggs v. Sackett, 275 Pa. Super. 13, 418 A.2d 586, Web 1980 Pa.Super. Lexis 2034 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania)
In this case the statute of frauds applies in 3 ways. The statute of frauds states that a written contract is required under the following circumstances present in the case:
• When real property is involved – A home is classified as real property, therefore any transfer of ownership is required to be written;
• When the contract cannot be performed in one year – Since the mortgage transfer had a remaining duration of 24+ years (including payments in arrears) it satisfies the criteria of lasting longer than a year;
• In a collateral contract in which a debt or duty is being adopted from another party – The Sacketts sought to adopt the responsibility of paying mortgage debt and paying future mortgage payments.
According to the above it appears Robert Briggs should win, however, the equitable doctrine of part performance may apply. Part performance is “An equitable