1. Kelly would be entitled to the 20-foot strip if that was agreement stated in the contract and if Brown knew that Kelly’s main goal was to eventually regain possession of his 20-foot strip of land. However, if Kelly and Brown just orally agreed that the 20-foot strip would be reconveyed to Kelly than Kelly is not entitled to get his 20-foot strip back because it was a sale of real estate and it needed to be in writing. All contracts to sell land, buildings, or interests in land must be evidenced by a writing. The ethical issue is that Brown knew that Kelly wanted his 30-foot strip back but he doesn’t legally have to give it back to him because it was written down in their contract although they orally agreed to it. Brown is unethical for not giving Kelly’s 20-foot strip back. But, Kelly might be able to get his land back because this is an issue involving promissory estoppel and Kelly relied on the promise made by Brown in order to validate his decision to sell to Brown under the terms defined in the written contract. …show more content…
Lawrence does not have a defense. The statute of frauds requires a contract for the promise by the executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate to pay a claim against the estate from personal funds to be written in a contract. Moore’s widow may have promised to pay the debt that her deceased husband owed Lawrence but without a written contract stating that she would pay her husband’s debt the promise cannot be enforced. The promise cannot be enforced unless it is evidenced by a writing. Lawrence does not have a defense because Moore’s promise to pay the debt was not written down in a contract and her promise was nothing more than a moral