Gagne v. Stevens
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
696 A.2d 411 (1997)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Betsy Stevens (defendant) sought to sell a parcel of real estate. Albert Gagne (plaintiff) expressed interest in purchasing Stevens’s parcel, so negotiations ensued. At some point in the negotiations, Stevens executed a written agreement to sell Gagne the parcel. However, the agreement’s description of the parcel lacked certainty. The agreement provided that the subject property was “a piece of lot # 58 on property map of the Town of Belgrade, in the approximate size of 30 ± [sic] in the sum of [$]20,000, located at the boundaries of the Foster Point Rd and Rt. 27 in Belgrade Me, also abutting to lot 59B.” When Gagne attempted to complete the sale under the agreement, Stevens claimed that the agreement was merely a commitment for future negotiations rather than a final contract. Stevens stated that she was under the impression that Gagne was going to return to discuss where the parcel was going to be located. Unsurprisingly, Stevens refused to convey the parcel to Gagne. Subsequently, Gagne sued Stevens to enforce the written agreement. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Stevens, finding that the description of the parcel in the agreement was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and that parol evidence was inadmissible to provide a precise description of the parcel’s location. Gagne appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lipez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
