Farmer Pete has breached a contract under the statute of fraud. The land Farmer Pete intended to sell to Bob had a value of above $500, implying that the fraud concept statute is applicable in the case (Chen, 2021). Since Farmer Pete had shown the intention of selling the land by advertising it in a local newspaper and got an offer from Bob, he should not have canceled the contract.
According to the statute of frauds concept, having a formal document for such agreements is not necessary. The newspaper advert and the letter Farmer Pete wrote to Bob can be used as evidence in the case. In addition, Farmer Pete had signed the letter, which shows that it meets the minimum threshold of being enforceable by law (Chen, 2021). When a signature is used on the letter, it shows a commitment to conduct the business between the two parties; therefore, if one party fails to adhere to the agreement, there is a contract breach.
In this case, the court will rule in favor of Bob because Farmer Pete has breached the contract. Bob has the legal right to get partial compensation if not the whole contract is enforced. Thus, the court will demand Farmer Pete give Bob partial compensation for the damages caused or for breaching the contract. This money will be used as compensation to Bob because by breaching the contract, Farmer Pete has wasted Bob’s time and willingness to purchase the land (Chen, 2021). In addition, the court may decide to enforce the contract by asking Farmer Pete to sell the land to Bob under the agreed terms. However, in both cases, Bob must benefit from the case because Farmer Pete has breached a contract.
Reference
Chen, J. (2021). Statute of Frauds. Investopedia. Web.