" ‘ "When therefore a party to an executory agreement in writing for the sale of lands succeeds in reforming it by oral testimony he reduces the whole agreement to a parol contract, and deprives himself of the right to have it specifically performed.” ' ” (quoting Brown v. Aiken, 329 Pa. 566, 198 A. 441, 447 (1938))
How later courts described this case
- " ‘ "When therefore a party to an executory agreement in writing for the sale of lands succeeds in reforming it by oral testimony he reduces the whole agreement to a parol contract, and deprives himself of the right to have it specifically performed.” ' ” (quoting Brown v. Aiken, 329 Pa. 566, 198 A. 441, 447 (1938))
- “The fact that ... alleged oral modifications to [a] contract were reduced to writing ... does not alter their character as parol.”
- signed contract modified by letter and oral admissions and conduct for purchase of real estate barred by statute of frauds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, President Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that the trial court’s order should be affirmed. However, I find it unnecessary to consider, as the majority considers, see its op. at 11-12 et seq., whether the memorandum signed by the Foundation satisfied the Statute of Frauds. Foundation’s letter was an offer. Target’s letter was a counter-offer because it materially altered the terms of Foundation’s offer; Target is trying to enforce its counter-offer. However, since the counter-offer is not signed by the party to be charged, enforcement of it is precluded by the Statute of Frauds.