This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
By the terms of the statute payment of part of the purchase money is sufficient.1 Payment implies that the vendor takes the thing given in payment with that understanding. Thus a tender of the purchase money,2 or of earnest,3 if unaccepted is not a compliance with the statute. Payment of part of the purchase price to the agent who is authorized to make the sale is sufficient.4 So if several contracts of sale have been made a general payment on account is sufficient to comply with the statute.5 Payment need not be in money. Anything of value accepted and received in payment amounts to payment within the meaning of this section. Payment, within the statute, may be by check,6 or note,7 as well as by cash. The transfer of a logging contract is payment of the purchase money within the statute.8 An oral promise, however, while it is a valuable consideration for a promise in return, is not payment within the meaning of the statute.9 Whether an agreement to purchase certain goods and to credit the price thereof upon a debt owed by the vendor to the vendee necessarily involves a part payment for such goods is a question on which there is some divergence of authority. The weight of authority holds that a mere oral agreement to credit the purchase price on the antecedent debt, without anything to the sale unequivocally indicating the mutual intentions of the parties." Alderton v. Buchoz, 3 Mich. 322, 329; cited in Gorman v. Bros-sard, 120 Mich. 611., 618; 79 N. W. 903.
12 See Sec. 696-704.
1 Cooper v. Gas Co., 127 Fed. 482; C. R. Shaw Lumber Co. v. Manville, 4 Ida. 369; 39 Pac. 559.
2 Edgerton v. Hodge, 41 Vt. 676.
3 Hershey Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 66 Minn. 449; 69 N. W. 215.
4 Jones v. Wattles, - Neb. -; 92 N. W. 765.
5Berwin v. Bolles, 183 Mass. 340; 67 N. E. 323.
6McLure v. Sherman, 70 Fed. 190.
7 Baldwin v. Threlkeld, 8 Ind. App. 312; 34 N. E. 851; rehearing denied, 35 N. E. 841. Contra, Krohn v. Bantz, 68 Ind. 277.
8 Burton v. Gage, 85 Minn. 355; 88 N. W. 997.
9 Edgerton v. Hodge, 41 Vt. 676.
further is not part payment within the meaning of the statute10 It has been said that a written receipt must be given or an actual credit on the old debt made.11 Credit given on the notes of the vendor which were held by the vendee is part payment within the meaning of the statute.12 In some cases, even a written receipt has been treated as a memorandum subject to the rules which control its form and essential elements, and not as part payment.13 Hence if the receipt does not show all the property bargained for, oral evidence is inadmissible to show that additional property was included in the contract.1* Other courts hold that, assuming such a contract to be within the statute, the satisfaction of the antecedent debt is such part payment as to comply with this section of the statute of frauds.15