It is well established that the payment of a part of the purchase money is not sufficient part performance of a contract for the sale of land, since “the payment of money is an equivocal act, not (in itself), until the connection is established by parol testimony, indicative of a contract concerning land”: see per the Earl of Selborne L.C. in Maddison v. Alderson (1883) 8 App.Cas. 467 at p. 479, H.L. Consequently, it cannot be deduced from exhibit A (temporary receipt for £G50 paid by the plaintiff), without more, that the payment of £G50 was made as part performance of a concluded contract of sale of land. The plain language of exhibit A does not even warrant such a construction; neither is the act of paying the sum of money exclusively referable to the alleged “partly performed” contract set up by the plaintiff.
ASARE v. ANTWI [1975] 1 GLR 16 [1975] SLR (CA) 4 · Court of Appeal · 1975 · ANIN JA
Read it in the judgment