528 A.2d at 1207 (quoting Hackney v. Morelite Const):, 418 A.2d 1062, 1065 n. 1 (D.C. 1980)). In Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003), the court explained as follows: "[T]o be enforceable under the statute of frauds a signed writing must express the essential terms of the agreement with a degree of certainty such that the agreement of the parties can be determined without recourse to parol evidence." 138 S.W.3d at 880.
The determinative issue in this case, as we perceive it, is whether the parties executed an agreement or writing that would satisfy the statute of frauds applicable to the sale of real property. This is an issue of law which we review de novo, with no presumption of correctness attached to the determination of the trial court. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003). Analysis
1979), quoting Price v. Tennessee Products Chemical Corporation, 385 S.W.2d 301, 308 (Tenn. 1964); (2) to avoid misunderstandings about the terms and nature of those contracts, Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 880 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003); Johnson v. Haynes, 532 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1975); and (3) to "avoid basing certain types of agreements on faulty memories." GRW Enterprises, Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d 606, 611 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990).
Conditions of a sale at auction that are announced at the auction are binding on the bidder. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Moore v. Berry, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955). Therefore, since there is no claim that Defendant engaged in fraud, intentional misconduct, or gross negligence, we have concluded that Defendant successfully negated the essential element that Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentation that the building was 11,556 square feet. Because Defendant negated an essential element of Plaintiff's claim, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.
The requirement that the memorandum be signed is meant to guarantee that the grantor has given his assent to the agreement. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003). The purpose of the Statute of Frauds, however, is not to allow a party to avoid agreements he or she has made. Cobble v. Langford, 230 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tenn. 1950).
Second, it seeks to avoid misunderstandings about the terms and nature of a contract. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 880 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003). Third, it seeks to "avoid basing certain types of agreements on faulty memories."
"[T]o be enforceable under the statute of frauds a signed writing must express the essential terms of the agreement with a degree of certainty such that the agreement of the parties can be determined without recourse to parol evidence." Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 880 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003). The statute of frauds, however, may be satisfied by multiple writings if (1) the party to be charged signed at least one of them, (2) the court can determine from the face of the writings that they are related, and (3) the court can determine with certainty the essential terms of the contract without the use of parol evidence.