Avent, Inc. is a real estate investment company located in Boston, Massachusetts. Avent was approached by a property owner in North Carolina, Eve, who owned a 50 acre parcel of land near a major highway. Avent's research of the land records indicated that the land could be subdivided into smaller parcels for single family homes. After Eve and Avent, Inc. entered into a written contract of sale for the land, the local county passed an ordinance that prevented the issuance of a permit to subdivide real property that was less than 75 acres in total. Which of the following is true about the agreement between Avent and Eve?

a.

The agreement is unenforceable because of the statute of frauds.

b.

The agreement is unenforceable under the doctrine of impossibility.

c.

The agreement will be enforced as written, except that Avent is free to pay less for the land.

d.

The agreement will be enforced as written.

Question

Business

Barbara Baker

18 November, 19:14

Avent, Inc. is a real estate investment company located in Boston, Massachusetts. Avent was approached by a property owner in North Carolina, Eve, who owned a 50 acre parcel of land near a major highway. Avent's research of the land records indicated that the land could be subdivided into smaller parcels for single family homes. After Eve and Avent, Inc. entered into a written contract of sale for the land, the local county passed an ordinance that prevented the issuance of a permit to subdivide real property that was less than 75 acres in total. Which of the following is true about the agreement between Avent and Eve?

a.

The agreement is unenforceable because of the statute of frauds.

b.

The agreement is unenforceable under the doctrine of impossibility.

c.

The agreement will be enforced as written, except that Avent is free to pay less for the land.

d.

The agreement will be enforced as written.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Jesus Blevins · Answer 1

The statement that is true here is:

b.

The agreement is unenforceable under the doctrine of impossibility.

Explanation:

This is a murky situation in terms of the law because the law itself changes after the contract is drawn up.

We can see how in a situation like this the old rule could still apply however that cannot be the case here as the permit to draw up the land simply cannot pass government sanction anymore.

If the act was possible it would only be if it was to be done in Independence.

Now that a specific law outlaws it, the work becomes impossible and the contract is not valid anymore.