Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The end result was that Carol and I felt forced into selling our inventory and licenses for $17,500.00. At that time we did not have anywhere to store or take our inventory to. We believed there was no other choice. At no time did either Carol or I agree to the termination of rights and obligations under the Business Lease dated October 1,1995. [¶ 15] As in Lamb, the facts relied on by the district court to determine the Pierces had fully performed their obligations and accepted the benefits under the unsigned written termination agreement and thereby voluntarily surrendered the lease are equally consistent with the Pierces mitigating their damages for the Elks’ alleged breach of the lease agreement. Compare Felco v. Doug’s N. Hill Bottle Shop, 1998 ND 111, ¶ 16, 579 N.W.2d 576 (<HOLDING>). The Pierces’ vacation of the premises, sale 
 Holding statements: (A) holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds (B) holding that if part performance is relied upon to remove the oral agreement from the operation of the statute of frauds clear and convincing proof of performance in pursuance of the alleged agreement must be adduced by the party seeking to enforce it (C) holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds (D) holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract (E) holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract
Output (English): holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds