## Facts

- Morris and Betty Cash sought to buy 15 acres of land owned by John and Sue Maddox in Pickens County, South Carolina.
- The parties discussed the transaction by telephone while the Cashes were in Florida and the Maddoxes were in Georgia.
- The Cashes mailed the Maddoxes a $200 check as a “binder”; the check contained the only writing about the alleged sale.
- The check memo stated: “15 acres in Pickens, S.C. land binder, 30 days from date of check to June 3, 1970.”
- John Maddox endorsed and cashed the check.
- The Maddoxes later refused to proceed with the sale, citing potential family trouble, and attempted to return the $200; the Cashes refused the refund.
- Trial evidence showed the Maddoxes owned a 76-acre tract in Pickens County and that 15.6 acres lay south of a highway and outside the city limits, but no written document identified which 15 acres were to be conveyed.

## Issues

1. Whether the notation on the check constituted a sufficient written memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds for a land-sale contract.
2. Whether a decree of specific performance could be based on a writing that did not identify the land to be conveyed with reasonable certainty, absent reliance on parol evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the decree ordering specific performance.
- The court held the check’s notation did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds because it failed to identify the land with reasonable certainty.
- The court rejected the use of parol evidence to supply an essential missing term—identification of the specific land to be conveyed.

## Legal Principles

- No particular form of writing is required to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, but the writing(s) must state the contract’s essential terms without resort to parol evidence.
- In a land-sale contract, identification of the land is an essential term.
- Because a decree of specific performance functions as a conveyance, the land must be described with reasonable certainty in the writing.
- Parol evidence may not be used to cure a vague or uncertain land description by supplying the missing identification.
- The party seeking specific performance must prove the contract with clear, definite, and certain evidence consistent with the Statute of Frauds.

## Conclusion

The alleged land-sale agreement was unenforceable in equity because the only writing—a check memo referring generally to “15 acres in Pickens, S.C.”—did not describe the property with sufficient certainty, and the missing identification could not be supplied by parol evidence; therefore, specific performance was improper.


Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 220 S.E.2d 121 (S.C. 1975)