Under what condition may oral contracts regarding land be enforced according to the courts?

The enforcement of oral contracts regarding land is heavily governed by legal principles and statutory frameworks. One of the established conditions under which an oral contract for land may be enforced is when possession is taken and improvements are made on the property. This principle aligns with the doctrine of part performance, which is intended to prevent one party from taking unfair advantage of the other when one party has acted upon the terms of the contract.

When a party takes possession of the land and makes substantial improvements, such as building structures or making significant alterations, it demonstrates that both parties had a mutual understanding and commitment to the agreement. The actions of taking possession and making improvements can provide enough evidence to support the existence and terms of the contract, even if it was initially made orally. This is particularly important in property law, as it can serve as a form of justification to enforce the agreement without a written contract, which is typically required for real estate transactions under the Statute of Frauds.

In contrast, the presence of a written agreement is often necessary for land contracts to be enforceable, thus making that condition invalid in this context. Verbal agreements alone, regardless of mutual consent, do not suffice without supporting actions like possession or improvements, and the presence of witnesses does not alter the necessity