Opinion ID: 725226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enforcement Pursuant to the Partial Performance Doctrine

Text: The most commonly recognized exception to the Statute of Frauds is the doctrine of part performance. Under it an otherwise unenforceable oral contract can be the basis of an action if one of the parties has performed. In this jurisdiction courts ... will enforce a verbal contract as to personal property where there has been partial performance. Trew v. Ogle, 767 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988) (citations omitted). Although the transaction between Cargile and MTD fell squarely within the Tennessee statute of frauds, 1 the district court held the agreement was removed from the statute since MTD's $5,000 payment and Cargile's forbearance in marketing, combined with his delivery of the prototype, constituted partial performance. We find no error in the district court's conclusion that the partial performance exception applies in this case. Although the district court incorrectly relied on previous Tennessee cases which dealt with specific statutory provisions permitting the partial performance exception, partial performance can remove an agreement from § 47-1-206. This is so because Tennessee deems the doctrine of partial performance as purely an equitable doctrine, Buice v. Scruggs Equipment Co., Inc., 250 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Tenn.1952), and principles of law and equity supplement § 47-1-206. TENN.CODE ANN. § 47-1-103 (1963) (supplementary general principles of law applicable to chapters 1-9 of title 47). We are not persuaded by MTD's challenges to this conclusion and therefore affirm the district court's finding on this point.