## Facts

- In July 1973, Richard Walker negotiated with Bernard Ireton for the purchase of the Iretons’ 160-acre farm in Saline County, Kansas.
- The parties orally agreed on a purchase price of $30,000, later increased by $500, and that Walker would take possession in January 1974.
- They also discussed that the Iretons would remain in the residence and that certain farming and tax arrangements would apply through the 1973 season.
- The parties agreed they would later execute a written contract for the sale, but the agreement was never reduced to a signed writing.
- In reliance on the agreement, Walker sold his existing farm and leased space to continue his horse-breeding and training business.
- Walker delivered a $50 deposit check as agreed.
- About a month later, Walker paid $36 to obtain an updated abstract of title and paid $75 for an attorney to review it.
- Walker then tendered an installment payment check for $7,612 (as part of the purchase price under the asserted agreement).
- Ireton did not endorse or deposit either the deposit check or the installment check, informed Walker he would not proceed with the sale, and refused the payments.
- Walker was later evicted from the leased space he had obtained for his business.
- Walker never received possession of the Ireton farm and did not make substantial or permanent improvements to the property.
- Walker sued for specific performance of the oral agreement; the trial court granted the Iretons summary judgment based on the statute of frauds, and Walker appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral contract for the sale of land may be specifically enforced despite the statute of frauds where the buyer claims reliance and part performance.
2. Whether Walker’s actions and expenditures were sufficient, under equitable principles (including Restatement-based reliance analysis), to avoid injustice only by enforcing the oral agreement.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Iretons.
- The court held the alleged oral agreement was within the statute of frauds and was not specifically enforceable without a signed writing.
- The court held Walker’s claimed reliance and asserted acts of performance were insufficient to remove the agreement from the statute of frauds.
- The court indicated Walker’s possible relief, if any, lay in limited restitution for direct benefits conferred, not conveyance of the land.

## Legal Principles

- A contract for the transfer of an interest in land is generally unenforceable unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.
- Equity may enforce an oral land-sale agreement only in narrow circumstances where the buyer’s reliance is so substantial that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement.
- In evaluating reliance-based enforcement, courts consider the extent and character of the reliance, whether it was foreseeable, and whether the conduct is clearly referable to the alleged land contract.
- Traditional part-performance indicators in land-sale disputes include delivery of possession and substantial, permanent improvements; the absence of both strongly weighs against specific performance.
- Out-of-pocket expenditures for title work or attorney review, and tendered payments that were not accepted, are typically compensable by money and do not, standing alone, justify specific performance.
- Acts collateral to the alleged land contract (such as selling other property or arranging separate business accommodations) may not be treated as performance of the land contract for statute-of-frauds purposes.
- Even when specific performance is denied, a claimant may be able to recover in restitution for benefits conferred that directly enriched the other party.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court refused to order conveyance of the farm because the parties never signed a writing for the land sale, and Walker’s reliance—selling his own farm, leasing other space, and incurring modest transaction expenses—did not include possession or substantial improvements and did not make enforcement the only way to avoid injustice, leaving at most limited restitution rather than specific performance.


Walker v. Ireton, 559 P.2d 340 (1977)