Walker v. Ireton
221 Kan. 314, 559 P.2d 340, 1977 Kan. LEXIS 219 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract for the sale of land may be specifically enforced notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds if the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract, has so changed their position that injustice can only be avoided by specific enforcement.
Facts:
- In July 1973, Richard Walker and Bernard Ireton orally agreed that Walker would purchase Ireton's 160-acre farm for $30,000, with possession to be transferred in January 1974.
- The parties agreed a written contract would be executed later, but Ireton repeatedly deferred, stating his 'word was good'.
- The price was later orally modified to $30,500, and on July 30, 1973, Walker delivered a $50 check to Ireton as a down payment, which Ireton never cashed.
- In August 1973, Walker obtained the property's abstract of title from Mrs. Ireton, paid $36 to have it updated, and paid a $75 attorney fee for its examination.
- In reliance on the oral agreement with Ireton, Walker sold another farm he had recently purchased because he could not afford to own both properties.
- Ireton later offered Walker $200 to cancel the agreement, which Walker declined.
- On September 28, 1973, when Walker tendered the next installment payment of $7,612.50, Ireton refused it and announced he was 'backing out of the oral agreement'.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Walker sued Bernard and Marjorie Ireton in the district court of Saline County, Kansas, seeking specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land.
- The Iretons answered, asserting the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense.
- Following a pretrial conference, the Iretons filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court sustained the Iretons' motion for summary judgment, finding the oral contract unenforceable under the statute of frauds and concluding that equitable considerations did not justify removing the case from the statute's application.
- Walker, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a buyer's actions—including making a partial down payment, paying for an abstract of title, and selling another property—constitute sufficient detrimental reliance to overcome the seller's Statute of Frauds defense and compel specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land?
Opinions:
Majority - Prager, J.
No. A buyer's actions of making a partial payment, paying for an abstract, and selling a collateral property are insufficient to overcome the Statute of Frauds. To justify specific performance of an oral land contract, the relying party must demonstrate that their position has changed so substantially that injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the contract. The court formally adopted the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 197 and 217A, which center on the doctrine of reliance. The court reasoned that Walker's actions were not sufficient to meet this high standard. Partial payment of the purchase price is inadequate because the money can be recovered through a simple action for restitution. Walker's sale of his other farm was deemed a 'collateral act' not contemplated by the parties to the oral contract and thus not a basis for enforcement. Since Walker never took possession of the Ireton farm or made any permanent improvements, his acts of reliance were not so substantial as to create a 'gross injustice' if the oral contract were not enforced.
Analysis:
This case formally adopts the Restatement (Second) of Contracts' reliance-based framework (§§ 197, 217A) for analyzing equitable exceptions to the Statute of Frauds in Kansas. It shifts the focus from rigid categories like 'part performance' to a more flexible inquiry into whether injustice can only be avoided by enforcement. The decision establishes a high bar for what constitutes sufficient reliance, clarifying that acts 'collateral' to the contract, such as selling another property, are generally insufficient unless they were specifically contemplated by the parties as part of the transaction. This provides future courts with a more structured test for balancing the policy of the Statute of Frauds against the need to prevent inequitable outcomes.
Unlock the full brief for Walker v. Ireton