Because oral contracts for real estate are unenforceable, the only allegation on appeal was the tortious interference with economic advantage action.
Not exact matches
However, it is advisable that a tenant should ensure that a tenancy agreement is put in writing
because written
contracts are easier to prove and enforce than
oral contracts.
The Supreme Court adopted the Court of Appeal's description of the position under standard
contract law (see Lord Clarke's judgment at para 20): ordinarily where the terms are in writing and there are no
oral terms then the written terms will, prima facie, represent the whole of the parties» agreement; the parties are bound by the written terms when they sign the
contract; the written terms will stand unless they do not accurately reflect what was agreed
because of a mistake (generally common to the parties); and no terms which conflict with the express terms can be implied into the
contract.
The Brokerage argued that his allegations should be dismissed
because the Statute of Frauds barred his
oral contract claims.
SageGroup Associates v. Dominion Textile (USA)(244 A.D. 2d 281)-- the «able» prong of the ready, willing and able test refers to the prospective subtenant's financial ability; although broker established he procured a prospective subtenant ready, willing and able to sublet on terms set by the prospective sublessor, the parties» disagreement as to the terms of their
oral agreement raised triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of either party; no cause of action exists in quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and account stated where there is an express
contract governing the broker's right to a commission; broker lacks standing to claim tortious interference with
contract against landlord for refusal to grant tenant permission to sublease
because broker is neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the sublease rejected by the landlord.