PJC Business

PJC 101.35

C ONTRACTS

In addition, although the statute of frauds forecloses a fraudulent inducement claim, a limited fraud claim for out-of-pocket damages is not similarly barred. See Haase v. Glazner , 62 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tex. 2001). Burden of proof. The party pleading the statute of frauds bears the initial burden of establishing its applicability. Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates , 422 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2013). Once that party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to establish an exception that would take the verbal contract out of the statute of frauds. Dynegy, Inc. , 422 S.W.3d at 641. Contracts for international sale of goods. The statute of frauds does not apply to contracts subject to the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Inter national Sale of Goods. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Apr. 11, 1980, 1489 U.N.T.S. 3 (“A contract of sale need not be con cluded in or evidenced by a writing and is not subject to any other requirement as to form. It may be proved by any means, including witnesses.”). Partial performance. Partial performance is an equitable exception to the statute of frauds, but the doctrine “requires more than just one party’s performance of some obligation under the alleged oral contract.” National Property Holdings, L.P. v. Wester gren , 453 S.W.3d 419, 426 n.2 (Tex. 2015). Under this exception, an oral contract to purchase real estate becomes enforceable if the purchaser: (1) pays the consideration; (2) takes possession of the property; and (3) makes permanent and valuable improvements on the property with the con sent of the seller, or, without such improvements, other facts are shown that would make the transaction a fraud on the purchaser if the oral contract was not enforced. Boyert v. Tauber , 834 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. 1992). For other oral contracts, “a contract that has been partially performed but that does not satisfy the statute of frauds may be enforced in equity if denial of enforcement would amount to virtual fraud.” In re Estate of Stegall , No. 02-17-00410-CV, 2019 WL 6205244, *12 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 21, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd. , 82 S.W.3d 429, 439 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pets. denied)). But the partial performance must be “unequivocally referable” to the oral agreement and corroborate that a contract was actually made . In re Estate of Stegall , 2019 WL 6205244, at *12. “If the evidence establishes that the party who performed the act that is alleged to be partial performance could have done so for some reason other than to fulfill obligations under the oral contract, the exception is unavailable.” Westergren , 453 S.W.3d at 426–27.

[PJC 101.36–101.40 are reserved for expansion.]

. . . . .

98