Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO.......take the offer from your employer and understand his need for privacy and that he is willing to pay you for that need he has...instead of low balling you being he employs you....your employer is a stand up guy
Yes, he really is helping me out (compared to assessed value) while ensuring privacy and i just might spend it on a new tractor to work the field he just bought.
The Statute of Frauds generally prohibits verbal contracts for the sale of land, among other things. However, there are exceptions to this principle, including where a party to the contract has relied on the agreement/promise to his/her detriment (see the principle of promissory estoppel). I'm not saying that is what the OP is faced with (still would need more facts before determining such), but things aren't so black and white either, unfortunately.
I don’t necessarily disagree. However, a basic component of a promissory estoppel situation is that a reasonable person would rely on the promise, and would experience an economic loss if the promised action was not completed. Given that verbal contracts for the sale of land aren’t generally valid, would a reasonable person rely on a verbal contract ( with no consideration) for the sale of land?
Regardless, the offer to sell is in no way a contract, as there was no meeting of the minds, with an agreement on terms of the deal.
The OP is under no obligation, legally or morally, to sell the land to the neighbor’s son’s friend.
I don’t necessarily disagree. However, a basic component of a promissory estoppel situation is that a reasonable person would rely on the promise, and would experience an economic loss if the promised action was not completed. Given that verbal contracts for the sale of land aren’t generally valid, would a reasonable person rely on a verbal contract ( with no consideration) for the sale of land?
Regardless, the offer to sell is in no way a contract, as there was no meeting of the minds, with an agreement on terms of the deal.
The OP is under no obligation, legally or morally, to sell the land to the neighbor’s son’s friend.
Without knowing all of the facts (particularly from the neighbor's son's friend), we cannot come to such a conclusion.
And, yes, it can be legitimately argued that a reasonable person (in this case, a neighbor's son's friend who had been in discussion with the OP for quite some time . . . not just some bloke off the street) would have relied on the OP's promise to his detriment. And this was a promise on terms to include price and plot size. Your argument ignores the exact reason for the principle of promissory estoppel as applied to cases for the sale of land. If a reasonable person could never be held to rely on a promise for the sale of land to his detriment, then the exception would not be there to begin with. Of course, there is much more that needs to be known before such a conclusion would be reached with any certainty in this matter.
Still, not only is promissory estoppel an exception to the statute of frauds, it is also an exception to the general requirements for contracts. The principle of promissory estoppel is, for instance, generally a defense for a lack of consideration; consideration being the third basic element required in order for a contract to be formed (the others are an offer and acceptance).
Note, while I am not giving legal advice (that is not allowed in this forum . . . I am merely stating well-established legal principles), I am a duly-licensed attorney. This is not a new topic for me.
Without knowing all of the facts (particularly from the neighbor's son's friend), we cannot come to such a conclusion.
And, yes, it can be legitimately argued that a reasonable person (in this case, a neighbor's son's friend who had been in discussion with the OP for quite some time . . . not just some bloke off the street) would have relied on the OP's promise to his detriment.
Since no information about this has been provided, what assumptions are you making about the detrimental reliance? What did the promisee do that was to his detriment?
Quote:
And this was a promise on terms to include price and plot size.
I must have missed this. In what post # is this information found?
Quote:
Your argument ignores the exact reason for the principle of promissory estoppel as applied to cases for the sale of land. If a reasonable person could never be held to rely on a promise for the sale of land to his detriment, then the exception would not be there to begin with. Of course, there is much more that needs to be known before such a conclusion would be reached with any certainty in this matter.
There was no meeting of the minds. What exactly would be enforced?
I already did talk to him and he basically said I shouldn't go back on my word but I didn't give him the details. I feel like a pawn in a mafia movie.
Tell him you can't be without a job...maybe you have family, whatever. Maybe he's too young to understand family and obligations so just nicely tell him that's what a person does, etc.
I have a list of "buyers" for when I sell my house. In quotes because they are actually potential buyers. I couldn't and can't agree to a price when I don't know when I'll sell and what the conditions will be then.
But I've already removed #1 recently because of some untenable stuff she was involved in.
I haven't read yet if you mentioned the guy's age. I understand keeping one's word. But stuff, good and bad, can happen to change that.
Without knowing all of the facts (particularly from the neighbor's son's friend), we cannot come to such a conclusion.
And, yes, it can be legitimately argued that a reasonable person (in this case, a neighbor's son's friend who had been in discussion with the OP for quite some time . . . not just some bloke off the street) would have relied on the OP's promise to his detriment. And this was a promise on terms to include price and plot size. Your argument ignores the exact reason for the principle of promissory estoppel as applied to cases for the sale of land. If a reasonable person could never be held to rely on a promise for the sale of land to his detriment, then the exception would not be there to begin with. Of course, there is much more that needs to be known before such a conclusion would be reached with any certainty in this matter.
Still, not only is promissory estoppel an exception to the statute of frauds, it is also an exception to the general requirements for contracts. The principle of promissory estoppel is, for instance, generally a defense for a lack of consideration; consideration being the third basic element required in order for a contract to be formed (the others are an offer and acceptance).
Note, while I am not giving legal advice (that is not allowed in this forum . . . I am merely stating well-established legal principles), I am a duly-licensed attorney. This is not a new topic for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvap View Post
I already did talk to him and he basically said I shouldn't go back on my word but I didn't give him the details. I feel like a pawn in a mafia movie.
Hmmm. . . That certainly doesn’t sound like “I spent $XXXXX as a result of relying on your promise. I need the court to fix this so that I am not unduly burden as a result of relying on your “promise.””
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.