Does location of property matter in a verbal agreement?

[JaredMN76]

Can somebody please help me with this...
I am being taken to small claims court in Massachusetts. I verbally agreed with the Plaintiff to buy a "share" of his ski house last winter, but then summarily lost my job, and was not able to partcipate. I used the house twice. Both the plaitiff and myself live in Massachusetts, but the ski house is in Vermont. Does the fact that the house is located out of state make a difference? Can I get this case thrown out? Also, would it make a difference if since the time of the agreement, the plaintiff had moved to New York State. If anyone knows the answer to any of these questions, guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Jared

 

[vrzirn]

All real estate transactions require a signed contract. However, you might owe him some rent for the days you used the property.

 

[JETX]

Sorry, 'vrzirn', but your reply is not correct. Sales are required to be in writing, but the court clearly find that a written agreement wouldn't be required in this case.

To answer.... the location of the property isn't critical in this case. The venue is set by agreement itself.

 

[vrzirn]

I would be interested to see how this turns out. If no contract and no witnesses and possible denial by defendant I do not see how he can be forced to buy a piece of a piece of property. It appears to me that if I get hard-selled into buying time share I have right to change my mind, especially if I haven't signed anything.

 

[JETX]

I certainly wasn't making any statements as to the validity of the case itself, only a response to your statement that it had to be in writing.