Opinion ID: 1890401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: B.1. Bruce's Claim for Specific Performance

Text: Bruce first claimed against Cole for specific performance of the alleged oral put-call agreement. By that claim Bruce sought to enforce Cole's alleged oral promise to sell all of his stock in Medical Holdings to Bruce for whatever price Cole himself offered to Bruce to buy all of Bruce's stock. Bruce alleged that Cole had offered to buy all of Bruce's stock for $50,000. Bruce therefore sought a judgment compelling Cole to sell all of his stock to Bruce for the price per share equivalent to Cole's offer. The Alabama Statute of Frauds, § 8-9-2, Ala.Code 1975, provides in pertinent part: In the following cases, every agreement is void unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized in writing: .... (8) Notwithstanding Section 7-8-113, every agreement for the sale or purchase of securities other than through facilities of a national stock exchange or of the over-the-counter securities market. The Alabama Comment to § 7-8-113, Ala.Code 1975, explains in pertinent part: Thus an agreement by a shareholder of a closely held corporation to sell all or a part of his shares continues to be subject to the statute of frauds, notwithstanding the elimination of a statute of frauds requirement as to transactions in the organized securities markets. The alleged oral put-call agreement, if it truly existed at all, was an agreement for the sale or purchase of securities other than through facilities of a national stock exchange or of the over-the-counter securities market, § 8-9-2(8). Therefore the alleged oral put-call agreement was void and unenforceable. Bruce seems to concede as much in his briefs to this Court. Therefore, the trial court properly entered a summary judgment against Bruce on his claim for specific performance.