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. Author: international
• 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
Leave a Reply