Unformatted text preview: property to be conveyed. History: The Probate court ruled in favor of the defendant, Devenyns. Issue: Does the agreement sufficiently describe the property as required by the statute of frauds? Decision: No. The probate court’s decision was reversed. Reasons: The property that is in the agreement was not described in the agreement, thus, it cannot be enforced. The legislative policy justifying the statute of frauds requires the courts to test what Jackson and the Devenyns put in the contract as a description. A description cannot be supplied by parol proof, so the probate court was wrong to accept that as a means of description. As a result, the contract is unenforceable....
View Full Document
- Spring '11
- PROBATE COURT, George Jackson, Devenyns