Part Performance Exception to Statute of Frauds To establish part performance sufficient to remove an oral contract from the statute

of frauds the performance must be more than the mere payment of money, it must unequivocally refer to the terms of the oral contract, and the court will also look to see if the parties have acted in accordance with all of the alleged contract terms.. Avitabile v. Silvestri 773 N.Y.S. 2d 275 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2004). Possession of the property taken together with payment of a purchase price and valuable improvements made to the property may be enough to constitute part performance. Id. Here the Allans paid over half of the agreed purchase price, made extensive improvements, were in possession of the property and reimbursed the property owner for taxes. There does seem to be substantial part performance on their part to make the argument to the court they are entitled to specific performance of the oral contract. However, if Mr. Rendina can offer any other explanation for that performance that does not refer to the terms of the oral contract, like a rental or lease agreement, then they would lose under this theory. Also the fact that they did not reimburse Mr. Rendina for the 2009 taxes may count against them in that they did not perform what seems to have been a term agreed to between the parties. This would be a difficult way to proceed because if there is anything equivocal in explaining the Allans performance the court will err on the side of the statute of frauds because there is no writing to memorialize the agreement. Quantum Meruit To maintain an action in quantum meruit the plaintiff must show 1.) the service was rendered in good faith; 2.) there was acceptance of the service by the person to whom is was rendered; 3.) there was an expectation of compensation; 4.) state the reasonable value of those services. Pulver Roofing Co., Inc. v. SBLM Architects, P.C. 884 N.Y.S. 2d 802 (N.Y.A.D. 4th Dept 2009). The services must be made at the bequest of the defendant. Here the Allans made improvements to the property in good faith in reliance on Mr. Rendinas representation he would convey the property to them. Mr. Rendina accepted those improvements in that he never stopped or rejected the work being done over the course of eleven years. He also accepted payments from the Allans for the purchase price and for taxes evidencing his acknowledgement of some obligation

between the parties. The Allans expected compensation in the form of title to the real property at issue. Lastly the Allans would need to show the value of the improvements they made. The Allans could sustain an action for quantum meruit in light of the details, however it may be difficult in that Mr. Rendina can argue he never intended to benefit from those improvements, never asked for them to be done and any knowledge he had of the improvements was only after the Allans had begun to perform them. The Allans were never hired by Mr. Rendina to perform these services and so he may argue he never expected to compensate them for the improvements and that any improvements made were for the Allans own benefit because they were the party living there. Unjust Enrichment An action for unjust enrichment allows for restitution where it would be inequitable to let the defendant keep the benefit bestowed by the plaintiff. A plaintiff must show that 1.) the defendant was enriched; 2.) at the expense of the plaintiff; 3.) and it is against equity and good conscience to let the defendant keep what the plaintiff claims as his. Baron v. Pfizer, Inc. 840 N.Y.S. 2d 445 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2007). Here, Mr. Rendina did not pay for any of the improvements made to the property at issue. It would be inequitable for him to retain the value of that benefit and to possibly gain at the Allans expense by selling the improved property to another buyer, while all the Allans have to show for their work is wasted time and money. The Allans expected to own the property and thus expended money and time in improving the property in Amity, it not in line with equity to allow them to go uncompensated because Mr. Rendina denies the existence of an oral contract. With the facts presented this would be the Allans best chance at recovery for the improvements made to the property.