Sun Valley owned over one acre of a lot that was
undeveloped. Hoffman took Sun Valley to district court based off of things in
the agreement. The judged ruled that there was an oral understanding of the
sale but they didn’t comply with statue of frauds and because of this the
agreement was unenforceable.
Is there an enforceable contract to sell the
property of Sun Valley? Are the two documents, the letter and check, sufficient
to satisfy the statutory requirements?
Was there an oral agreement and is
there sufficient memorandum signed by the parties that evidences the agreement so
that the statute of frauds is satisfied?
Yes and No. Yes, they did come to a mutual agreement
however, the agreement did not comply with the statute of frauds and the
agreement is not enforceable.
Opinion Reasoning: Justice Shepard
A contract require that the parties
have a specific understanding
Idaho requires that both parties
sign the documents while the rest of other jurisdictions require only one party
to sign the documents
The parties had negotiated the
purchase price which was then approved by the executive committee. The agreed
upon price was $90,000 which could be paid in cash or they could do a 30% down
payment on the land. Hoffman sent Sun Valley a check and an email which listed
The sale agreement was never signed
by Sun Valley.
Hoffman says he exercised buyer
rights because they had someone come survey the land.
Opinion(s) Reasoning: Bakes, C.J., McFadden and Donaldson,
Opinion(s) Reasoning: Bistline
Bistline stated that Idaho’s law may be outdated and
possibly need to be changed. When parties have as much documentation as these
two parties did and it still doesn’t meet the requirements OF Statute of
Frauds, then the laws can’t accommodate to the business transactions in the
world today. While the majority of other jurisdictions only require one
signature on documents, Idaho requires both parties to sign the documentation.
Bistline thinks that Idaho needs to follow in the footsteps of others in a more
updated and modern law. The court needs to consider the possibility of this law
The “Carolina Cougars” were a basketball club who
sued a professional basketball player named William Cunningham. The Cougars
were suing him for a violation of contract due to the fact that he was doing
services at other clubs besides the Cougars. Under the district court, they found
that “If Cunningham had failed and refused to perform his contract, plaintiffs
had unclean hands and had breached their contract with Cunningham.” Due to
this, the court denied this case. They later appealed the decision of the
Was the contract for Cunningham assignable to the
Yes, Cunningham’s contract was assignable to the
new owners. This is based off that a personal service contract which requires
specific skills cant be assigned without the other party rendering services.
Opinion Reasoning: Circuit Judge Winter
Rule: Under personal contracts they are
Because Cunningham was not required to perform differently
between the two teams its not considered a breach of contract. Due to that,
Cunningham would win this case.
Opinion(s) Reasoning: None
Opinion(s) Reasoning: None