Opinion ID: 1896318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether equitable estoppel precludes the application of the statute of frauds.

Text: ¶ 23. [T]he doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked to preclude a party to a contract from asserting the unenforceability of a contract by reason of the fact that it is not in writing as required by the statute of frauds. Sanders v. Dantzler, 375 So.2d 774, 776 (Miss.1979). Where one has acted to his detriment solely in reliance on an oral agreement, an estoppel may be raised to defeat the defense of the statute of frauds. Id. Phillips claims that he detrimentally relied upon Fitzner's promise to repay by infusing over $3,000,000 into Plantation Pointe, and that equitable estoppel should be applied. ¶ 24. However, Phillips did not act to his detriment  for every cash contribution, he received a proportionate increase in the capital of Plantation Pointe. This claim is without merit.