ts they declare that though the contract is not void it
cannot be enforced.

While the Statute of Frauds in some states is regarded as completely
nullifying contracts not conforming to its requirements, they are not
anywhere held to be illegal, that is, are not made in violation of
law. "There appears," says Woodward, "to be no reason of policy,
therefore, for denying to a party thereto in a proper case, the aid of
the court in obtaining quasi contractual relief, or the right to
establish the justice of his quasi contractual demand by proving the
terms of the unenforceable agreement. True, the evidence of the
agreement in such a case, must be oral; but since the evidence is for
the purpose of proving, not a contract as such, but a transaction
resulting in an unjust benefit to the defendant, its introduction
would seem not to contravene the statute."

A purchaser of land under an oral contract, who is given possession
and subsequently fails to pay, is liable for the use of the land to
him while he has occupied it. Though the act of the seller in giving
the purchaser possession without conveying the title may not be
regarded as a part performance of the contract of sale, yet the
benefit resulting to the purchaser creates an obligation to make
restitution which the courts will enforce. The improvement of land by
the purchaser under an oral contract is an act which enables him to
enforce the contract in equity. Improvements made by a lessee under an
oral lease within the statute are governed by the same rules as those
of improvements made by a purchaser.

If no benefit has been derived from the contract, nothing can be
recovered. Thus, a son worked for his father on his father's farm
under an unenforceable contract with his uncle. The latter was under
no quasi contractual obligation to pay the value of such service,
since he had derived no benefit from them. Likewise one who, relying
on an unenforceable contract, constructed a wood-chopping machine that
was not accepted could not recover for the value of his labor and
materials.

Again, where one party by his own act or default has prevented the
other party from fully performing his contract, the party thus
preventing performance cannot take advantage of his own act or
default, and screen himself from payment for what has been done under
the contract. Thus, if one party agrees with another to work on a
house the law implies that the employee owns the building in which