Hickey v. Green

Facts

Mrs. Gladys Green owned a vacant lot (Lot S) in the Manomet section of Plymouth. In July, 1980, she advertised it for sale. On July 11 and 12, Hickey and his wife discussed buying it with her and orally agreed to a sale for $15,000. On July 12 Mrs. Green accepted a $500 deposit check. Hickey wrote on its back that it was a deposit on the lot, subject to a variance from the town. Her brother and agent had thought a zoning variance was needed and had advised that wording, but by July 16 it turned out none was required. Hickey left the payee line blank and asked Mrs. Green to fill in the name. She held the check and never filled in the payee, cashed it or endorsed it. Hickey told her he meant to sell his home and build on her lot. Relying on these arrangements, the Hickeys advertised their house on Sachem Road in newspapers on three days in July, 1980. They agreed to sell it to a purchaser and deposited his $500 check in their own account. On July 24, Mrs. Green told Hickey she no longer intended to sell to him and would sell to another for $16,000. Hickey said he had already sold his house and offered her $16,000. She refused.

Issues

1. Can the Hickeys obtain specific performance of Mrs. Green's oral promise to sell Lot S, even though the Statute of Frauds requires a writing, because they relied on her promise?
2. On what terms may the order to convey the lot stand, and what may the trial judge do if the Hickeys' reliance has changed since the trial?

Holding

On these stipulated facts, Mrs. Green could be held to her oral promise to convey Lot S by equitable estoppel despite the Statute of Frauds. The conveyance had to be conditioned on cash payment of the balance of $15,000 within a stated period, and restitution might replace it if circumstances had changed.