Halstead v. Murray

Halstead v. Murray

1988 New Hampshire Supreme Court

• Halstead sued Murray for zoning violation on his property. Settlement was made where Murray would sell property to Halstead. Halstead signs contract, then Murray refuses, wants more money for land.
• Murray claims Statute of Frauds –contract for sale of land needs to be in writing.
• Writing was only executed by Murray’s Attorney , and there is no writing authorizing Murray’s Attorney to act as Murray’s agent.
• Substantially all statutes of fraud require agent authorization to be in writing if represented person does not sign contract himself.
• Court suggests unity theory–no need for written authorization in this case. If Murray doesn’t like decision of his agent, he can sue his attorney.
• Dissent: suggests floodgate of litigation against people’s attorneys. Unlikely to really happen, though.

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Attorney, Statute of Frauds.


Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *