HICKEY v. GREEN Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiffs orally agreed to buy land, gave a deposit, and sold their home in reliance. Defendant seller reneged. Court found reliance could overcome the Statute of Frauds, potentially warranting specific performance.
Legal Significance: Adopts Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 129, allowing specific performance of an oral land contract if detrimental reliance makes non-enforcement unjust, even without traditional part performance elements like possession or improvements.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant, Mrs. Green, orally agreed to sell a parcel of land (Lot S) to plaintiffs, the Hickeys, for $15,000. Hickey gave Green a $500 deposit check, which Green retained but did not cash or endorse, and the payee line was left blank. The check noted the deposit was “Subject to Variance,” a condition later found unnecessary. Hickey informed Green of his intent to sell his current home and build on Lot S. Relying on this oral agreement, the Hickeys advertised their home and, within ten days, entered into a binding agreement to sell it, accepting a deposit. Subsequently, Green informed Hickey she would not sell Lot S to him, having received a higher offer of $16,000 from another party. Hickey offered to meet the $16,000 price, but Green refused. The Hickeys sued for specific performance. Green asserted the Statute of Frauds (G.L.c. 259, § 1) as a defense, as there was no sufficient written memorandum of the sale. The trial court granted specific performance.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a party obtain specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, where that party reasonably relied on the contract and the other party’s continued assent, and so changed position that injustice can only be avoided by specific enforcement?
Yes, specific performance may be granted under such circumstances. The court vacated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May a party obtain specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, where that party reasonably relied on the contract and the other party’s continued assent, and so changed position that injustice can only be avoided by specific enforcement?
Conclusion
This case is significant for formally adopting the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo co
Legal Rule
A contract for the transfer of an interest in land may be Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
Legal Analysis
The court explicitly adopted the rule from Restatement (Second) of Contracts § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An oral contract for the sale of land can be enforced