Brantley v. Wilson
United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas
2006 WL 436121 (2006)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Scarlett Wilson (defendant) owned approximately 37 acres of land. Larry Brantley (plaintiff) called Wilson and asked if the property was for sale. Wilson said she would sell for $10,000 per acre. Wilson and Brantley exchanged a series of e-mails in which they agreed to a purchase price of $370,000, in cash at the time of closing, with closing costs to be split 50/50, but did not set a closing date. Brantley wrote that he would not have trouble obtaining financing and requested a survey of the property. The e-mails did not discuss earnest money, retention of mineral interests, or a deadline for financing. Brantley’s attorney prepared a real estate contract, which Brantley signed and forwarded to Wilson. Instead of signing, Wilson e-mailed Brantley stating that she had “decided not to sell . . . at this time for $10,000 per acre,” because a neighbor had told her that nearby properties had sold for much higher prices. Brantley brought suit seeking specific performance, asserting that the e-mails formed a valid contract. Wilson moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parties did not intend the e-mails to form a contract. Moreover, Wilson argued that any agreement reached by the e-mails was too vague to be enforceable and would violate the statute of frauds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hendren, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
