Question

A lawyer rented an office building for his law practice and subleased most of the building to three other tenants. The lawyer paid $2,000 per month to the owner and charged his subtenants $600 per month each. After having been in the building for three years, the lawyer and the owner orally agreed that the lawyer would purchase it for a price of $120,000, to be paid in monthly installments of $2,000 over a five-year period. It was further agreed that title would remain in the owner's name until $48,000 had been paid on the total price, whereupon the owner would deliver a deed to the lawyer. Shortly thereafter, the lawyer spent $4,000 redecorating his suite. During the course of the next two years, the lawyer hired an associate and placed her in one of the offices formerly occupied by one of the subtenants, and raised the monthly rental he charged the other two subtenants to $700. Two years after the agreement with the owner, the lawyer demanded that the owner convey the building by delivery of a deed. The owner refused, denying that any oral agreement for sale had ever existed. The lawyer brings an action for specific performance against the owner, who pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense. If the owner wins, what is the likely reason

Answer 1

Answer: Statute of Frauds

Step-by-step explanation:

The Statute of Frauds requires that real estate sales be conducted in writing instead of via oral agreement and since the lawyer and the owner had only an oral agreement, the courts would most likely side with the owner.

The lawyer can argue under the Principle of Part Performance (an exception to the Statute of Frauds) that his actions in renovating the place were consistent with someone who had an agreement to buy the place but the owner could argue that the lawyer's actions were simply those of a leasee improving the conditions of the place he is renting. This would bring the courts on the side of the owner.