This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Green (D) owned Lot S. Hickey (P) discussed purchasing the lot from D. The parties orally agreed to a sale for $15,000. D accepted a $500 deposit check and wrote on the back that it was a deposit for Lot S. The check was marked on the back that the deposit was subject to a variance from the town. D’s brother was under the impression that a zoning variance was needed and advised P to write the language on the back of the check. No variance was needed, and this was discovered by July 16. The payee line on the check had been left blank because of the uncertainty over who was to get the check D or her brother. D held the check, did not fill in the payee line and did not cash or endorse it. P had intended to sell his home and build on D’s lot. Relying on this agreement, P sold his house. D then told P that she no longer intended to sell her property to him but had decided to sell it to someone else for $16,000. P told D that he had already sold his house and offered her $16,000, but D refused. P wanted specific performance. D claimed that the agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds. The trial court granted specific performance. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.