Which statement is true about enforceability of a writing-required contract when there is partial performance?

Which statement is true about enforceability of a writing-required contract when there is partial performance?

• A. An agreement that must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds can be enforceable if there is partial performance.
• B. An oral contract for land sale is enforceable.
• C. A contract for services must be in writing but can be oral otherwise.
• D. All contracts must be in writing.

Answer: (A)

Partial performance can remove the barrier of the writing requirement for contracts that must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds. When a contract for something like land is not in writing, it normally can’t be enforced. But if one side has already begun performance in a way that clearly refers to and evidences the contract—such as paying part of the price, taking possession, and making improvements—the agreement can be enforced to the extent of what has been performed. The key is that the acts must be unequivocally tied to the contract so a court can confidently say there was indeed an agreement and partially fulfill it despite the lack of a formal writing. So, the statement that a writing-required agreement can be enforceable if there is partial performance accurately reflects this exception. Context helps: this rule prevents unfair results where one party would be unjustly rewarded for the costs already incurred, while the other party would escape the contract’s terms simply because a formal writing was never executed. It doesn’t mean every oral land transaction is enforceable; it means, in the right circumstances, the partial performance evidence can make enforcement possible for the portion already performed. The other options aren’t correct in general: land contracts aren’t enforceable just because they’re oral, service contracts aren’t universally required to be in writing, and not all contracts must be in writing.

Partial performance can remove the barrier of the writing requirement for contracts that must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds. When a contract for something like land is not in writing, it normally can’t be enforced. But if one side has already begun performance in a way that clearly refers to and evidences the contract—such as paying part of the price, taking possession, and making improvements—the agreement can be enforced to the extent of what has been performed. The key is that the acts must be unequivocally tied to the contract so a court can confidently say there was indeed an agreement and partially fulfill it despite the lack of a formal writing. So, the statement that a writing-required agreement can be enforceable if there is partial performance accurately reflects this exception.

Context helps: this rule prevents unfair results where one party would be unjustly rewarded for the costs already incurred, while the other party would escape the contract’s terms simply because a formal writing was never executed. It doesn’t mean every oral land transaction is enforceable; it means, in the right circumstances, the partial performance evidence can make enforcement possible for the portion already performed. The other options aren’t correct in general: land contracts aren’t enforceable just because they’re oral, service contracts aren’t universally required to be in writing, and not all contracts must be in writing.