Legal Question in Real Estate Law in New Jersey

Re: Verbalo Agreements

depends. Real Estate should be in writing according to the Statute of Frauds rules, however, certain actions, such as accepting deposits, may change the situation

Re: Verbalo Agreements

MAYBE, DEPENDING UPON THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OTHER FACTORS. FOR EXAMPLE, CONTRACTS INVOLVING REAL ESTATE ARE TO BE IN WRITING UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS. THIS WOULD INCLUDE LEASES, CONTRACTS OF SALE, ETC. OTHER SUBJECTS MAY ALLOW VERBAL CONTRACTS, AND SOME VERBAL AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN UPHELD WHEN THERE WAS PART PERFORMANCE. I SUGGEST YOU SEND A NEW INQUIRY WITH MORE FACTS SO THAT THE DETAILS OF YOUR SITUATION CAN BE AND A BETTER RESPONSE PROVIDED.

Re: Verbalo Agreements

All agreements are binding. The question is rather whether a court, in attempting to enforce an agreement, will allow evidence of a verbal agreement to establish the existence of a contract. That issue is almost older than dirt.

The rule is expressed as the Statute of Frauds. Originating in English common law, the Statute of Frauds requires that verbal evidence of certain contracts is not admissible in court to establish the existence of an agreement. The Statute of Frauds applies to contracts over a certain value (normally $500 although the Uniform Commercial Code permits higher limits), contracts applying to the sale or title of real property, contracts in consideration of marriage, and other important contracts that a reasonable person of the Sixteenth Century might have expected to memorialize in a written agreement.

The Statute of Frauds is a rule of evidence and not a rule of substantive law. Judges hate it because it limits the consideration that the court might give to relevant issues. A judge may be expected to find any convenient reason around the rule. Partial performance is the most common reason. For example:

Able and Baker agree verbally that Baker will erect a garage on Able�s land for a price of $3000. (That price places the contract within the Statute of Frauds and evidence of it is inadmissible in court.) Baker buys materials that are appropriate for construction of the garage and shows up with a work crew on Monday morning. Able rescinds the contract and prohibits Baker from performing the work. In a suit against Able, the fact of Baker�s purchase of the materials is admissible and so is the answer to the question �And why did you purchase those materials?�