Suppose that john enters into an oral agreement with kevin to buy a parcel of land. john pays kevin two-thirds of the purchase price, takes possession of the land, and builds a new stone wall on the property. kevin later decides that he wants the property back and that the oral contract is not enforceable because the statute of frauds requires contracts transferring interests in land to be in writing. in this situation, given that the parties cannot

The answer is B) Rule the contract valid because of partial performance.

While oral agreements are never a good idea in a business deal, the case of Kevin and John shows a classic misunderstanding that takes place without formal agreements.

However, in this scenario , if the case of John and Kevin is taken to court, the Judge will most likely side John.

This is because, even though there is not written agreement, it is evident that there was an oral agreement and that based on that agreement John had invested money to buy that property, build a stone wall on it and was going to pay off the remaining 1/3rd of the price of the property.

Hence, John will keep on owning the land he would be required to pay the remaining 1/3rd of the price of the property to Kevin as soon as possible.

Bi would !