The case was about a dispute over the sale of lakeside property. The parties had signed a contract, but it was contingent on the defendants obtaining a permit. During the process, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative, but the defendants backed out. The plaintiffs claimed that they had an oral agreement, but the court ruled that it was unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds. The plaintiffs were not entitled to damages because they could not prove they had relied on the agreement in a way that went beyond typical responsibilities of a buyer or seller.

Chomicky v. Buttolph (1986)
Vermont Supreme Court
147 Vt. 128, 513 A.2d 1174

Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]

---

Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.

Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]

Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.

Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть