Opinion ID: 1657561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Formation of a contract

Text: With respect to the approximately 109 acres Shirley Van Dyke had expressed an interest in buying immediately, the letter from Dorsey D. Glover to Ms. Van Dyke gave a purchase price but proposed a sliding payment scale based on the amount of down payment and then said, You let us know what you are comfortable with and we will put the figures together for you. As to the other tracts in which Mrs. Van Dyke had expressed an interest, the letter stated current land values and then presented an example of a kind of deal that might be entered: As an example, if you wanted to buy the 77 acre tract marked in blue.... If, instead of buying it today you wanted a two year option to buy.... Using that same example, if you decided to go ahead and buy the land one year after the option date.... The letter concluded by saying, We will go over all of this when you are here at the office today.... The complaint alleged simply that the offer was accepted by Mrs. Van Dyke when she returned to the office and offered earnest money. As we held in Wyatt v. Yingling, 213 Ark. 160, 210 S.W.2d 122 (1948), to satisfy the statute of frauds, a writing must be such that all of the contract can be collected from it. To say that the writing in this case formed a contract would leave unknown the terms of financing and payment with respect to the 109-acre tract. It would also leave unknown the option durations and payment options choices among those proposed with respect to the other tracts in which Mrs. Van Dyke had expressed interest. The Chancellor was correct in holding the writing was insufficient to support a finding of a contract upon a general acceptance. To have formed a contract satisfying the statute of frauds, the writing must have embraced the terms and conditions of the sale and it must have been a mutual contract. Tate v. Clark, 203 Ark. 231, 156 S.W.2d 218 (1941).