In the context of enforcing an oral land sale contract, which action by the other party can lead to enforceability?

• A. The other party admits the existence of the contract
• B. The contract is not enforceable unless written
• C. The contract is terminated by mutual rescission
• D. The other party asserts the contract is invalid

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is how the Statute of Frauds interacts with oral land contracts. Normally, a contract for the sale of real property must be in writing to be enforceable. But when the other party admits in court (or in pleadings) that the contract exists, that admission waives the writing requirement and makes the contract enforceable to the extent of the admission. In other words, the recognition by the other party removes the defense that the agreement wasn’t written, allowing enforcement even though the deal was oral. Courts can then enforce the contract, often through specific performance, since land is a unique subject matter. The other scenarios don’t create enforceability: insisting it must be written is just restating the rule, mutual rescission ends the contract, and claiming invalidity argues against enforcement rather than enabling it.