Fuld, J.

In September of 1947, Nate Crabtree entered into preliminary negotiations with Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation, manufacturers and sellers of cosmetics, looking toward his employment as sales manager. Interviewed on September 26th, by Robert P. Johns, executive vice-president and general manager of the corporation, who had apprised him of the possible opening, Crabtree requested a three-year contract at *52$25,000 a year. Explaining that he would he giving up a secure well-paying job to take a position in an entirely new field of endeavor — which he believed would take him some years to master — he insisted upon an agreement for a definite term. And he repeated his desire for a contract for three years to Miss Elizabeth Arden, the corporation’s president. When Miss Arden finally indicated that she was prepared to offer a two-year contract, based on an annual salary of $20,000 for the first six months, $25,000 for the second six months and $30,000 for the second year, plus expenses of $5,000 a year for each of those years, Crabtree replied that that offer was 11 interesting ”. Miss Arden thereupon had her personal secretary make this memorandum on a telephone order blank that happened to be at hand:

‘ ‘ Employment Agreement with

Nate Cbabtbee Date Sept 26-1947

At 681 — 5th Ave 6: PM

* * #

Begin 20000.

6 months 25000.

6 “ 30000.

5000. — per year

Expense money

[ 2 years to make good]

Arrangement with Mr Crabtree

By Miss Arden

Present Miss Arden

Mr John

Mr Crabtree

Miss OLeary ”

A few days later, Crabtree ’phoned Mr. Johns and telegraphed Miss Arden; he accepted the “ invitation to join the Arden organization ”, and Miss Arden wired back her “ welcome ”. When he reported for work, a “ pay-roll change ” card was made up and initialed by Mr. Johns, and then forwarded to the payroll department. Reciting that it was prepared on September 30, 1947, and was to be effective as of October 22d, it *53specified the names of the parties, Crabtree’s “Job Classification ” and, in addition, contained the notation that “ This employee is to be paid as follows:

“ First six months of employment $20,000. per annum

Next six months of employment 25,000. “ “

After one year of employment 30,000. “ “

Approved by EPJ [initialed] ”

After six months of employment, Crabtree received the scheduled increase from $20,000 to $25,000, but the further specified increase at the end of the year was not paid. Both Mr. Johns and the comptroller of the corporation, Mr. Carstens, told Crab-tree that they would attempt to straighten out the matter with Miss Arden, and, with that in mind, the comptroller prepared another 11 pay-roll change ’ ’ card, to which his signature is appended, noting that there was to be a “ Salary increase ” from $25,000 to $30,000 a year, 1 ‘ per contractual arrangements with Miss Arden The latter, however, refused to approve the increase and, after further fruitless discussion, plaintiff left defendant’s employ and commenced this action for breach of contract.

At the ensuing trial, defendant denied the existence of any agreement to employ plaintiff for two years, and further contended that, even if one had been made, the statute of frauds barred its enforcement. The trial court found against defendant on both issues and awarded plaintiff damages of about $14,000, and the Appellate Division, two justices dissenting, affirmed. Since the contract relied upon was not to be performed within a year, the primary question for decision is whether there was a memorandum of its terms, subscribed by defendant, to satisfy the statute of frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31).1

Each of the two payroll cards — the one initialed by defendant’s general manager, the other signed by its comptroller — unquestionably constitutes a memorandum under the statute. That they were not prepared or- signed with the intention of evidencing the contract, or that they came into existence subse*54quent to its execution, is of no consequence (see Marks v. Cowdin, 226 N. Y. 138,145; Spiegel v. Lowenstein, 162 App. Div. 443, 448-449; see, also, Restatement, Contracts, §§ 209, 210,. 214); it is enough, to meet the statute’s demands, that they were signed with intent to authenticate the information contained therein and that such information does evidence the terms of the contract. (See Marks v. Cowdin, supra, 226 N. Y. 138; Bayles v. Strong, 185 N. Y. 582, affg. 104 App. Div. 153; Spiegel v. Lowenstein, supra, 162 App. Div. 443, 448; see, also, 2 Corbin on Contracts [1951], pp. 732-733, 763-764; 2 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed., 1936], pp. 1682-1683.) Those two writings contain all of the essential terms of the contract — the parties to it, the position that plaintiff was to assume, the salary that he was to receive — except that relating to the duration of plaintiff’s employment. Accordingly, we must consider whether that item, the length of the contract, may be supplied by reference to the earlier unsigned office memorandum, and, if so, whether its notation, 11 2 years to make good ”, sufficiently designates a period of employment.

The statute of frauds does not require the “ memorandum * * * to be in one document. It may be pieced together out of separate writings, connected with one another either expressly or by the internal evidence of subject matter and occasion ”. (Marks v. Cowdin, supra, 226 N. Y. 138,145; see, also, 2 Williston, op. cit., p. 1671; Restatement, Contracts, § 208, subd. [a].) Where each of the separate writings has been subscribed by the party to be charged, little if any difficulty is encountered. (See, e.g., Marks v. Cowdin, supra, 226 N. Y. 138, 144-145.) Where, however, some writings have been signed, and others have not — as in the case before us — there is basic disagreement as to what constitutes a sufficient connection permitting the unsigned papers to be considered as part of the statutory memorandum. The courts of some jurisdictions insist that there be a reference, of varying degrees of specificity, in the signed writing to that unsigned, and, if there is no such reference, they refuse to permit consideration of the latter in determining whether the memorandum satisfies the statute. (See, e.g., Osborn v. Phelps, 19 Conn. 63; Hewitt Grain & Provision Co. v. Spear, 222 Mich. 608.) That conclusion is based upon a construe*55tian of the statute which requires that the connection between the writings and defendant’s acknowledgment of the one not subscribed, appear from examination of the papers alone, without the aid of paroi evidence. The other position — which has gained increasing support over the years — is that a sufficient connection between the papers is established simply by a reference in them to the same subject matter or transaction. (See, e.g., Frost v. Alward, 176 Cal. 691; Lerned v. Wannemacher, 91 Mass. 412.) The statute is not pressed “ to the extreme of a literal and rigid logic ” (Marks v. Cowdin, supra, 226 N. Y. 138, 144), and oral testimony is admitted to show the connection between the documents and to establish the acquiescence, of the party to be charged, to the contents of the one unsigned. (See Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U. S. 289; Oliver v. Hunting, 44 Ch. D. 205, 208-209; see, also, 2 Corbin, op. cit., §§ 512-518; cf. Restatement, Contracts, § 208, subd. [b], par. [iii].)

The view last expressed impresses us as the more sound, and, indeed — although several of our cases appear to have gone the other way (see, e.g., Newbery v. Wall, 65 N. Y. 484; Wilson v. Lewiston Mill Co., 150 N. Y. 314) — this court has on a number of occasions approved the rule, and we now definitively adopt it, permitting the signed and unsigned writings „ to be read together, provided that they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction. (See, e.g., Peabody v. Speyers, 56 N. Y. 230; Raubitschek v. Blank, 80 N. Y. 478; Peck v. Vandemark, 99 N. Y. 29; Coe v. Tough, 116 N. Y. 273; Delaware Mills v. Carpenter Bros., 235 N. Y. 537, affg. 200 App. Div. 324.)

The language of the statute — ‘ ‘ Every agreement * ® * is void, unless =": * * some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged (Personal Property Law, § 31) — does not impose the requirement that the signed acknowledgment of the contract must appear from the writings alone, unaided by oral testimony. The danger of fraud and perjury, generally attendant upon the admission of paroi evidence, is at a minimum in a case such as this. None of the terms of the contract are supplied by paroi. All of them must be set out in the vari*56pus writings presented to the court, and at least one writing, the one establishing a contractual relationship between the parties, must bear the signature of the party to be charged, while the unsigned document must on its face refer to the same transaction as that set forth in the one that was signed. Parol evidence — to portray the circumstances surrounding the making of the memorandum — serves only to connect the separate documents and to show that there was assent, by the party to be charged, to the contents of the one unsigned. If that testimony does not convincingly connect the papers, or does not show assent to the unsigned paper, it is within the province of the judge to conclude, as a matter of law, that the statute has not been satisfied. True, the possibility still remains that, by fraud or perjury, an agreement never in fact made may occasionally be enforced under the subject matter or transaction test. It is better to run that risk, though, than to deny enforcement to all agreements, merely because the signed document made no specific mention of the unsigned writing. As the United States Supreme Court declared, in sanctioning the admission of paroi evidence to establish the connection between the signed and unsigned writings. “ There may be cases in which it would be a violation of reason and common sense to ignore a reference which derives its significance from such [paroi] proof. If there is ground for any doubt in the matter, the general rule should be enforced. But where there is no ground for doubt, its enforcement would aid, instead of discouraging, fraud.” (Beckwith, v. Talbot, supra, 95 U. S. 289, 292; see, also, Raubitschek v. Blank, supra, 80 N. Y. 478; Freeland v. Rits, 154 Mass. 257, 259; Gall v. Brashier, 169 F. 2d 704, 708-709; 2 Corbin, op. cit., § 512, and cases there cited.)

• Turning to the writings in the case before us — the unsigned office memo, the payroll change form initialed by the general manager Johns, and the paper signed by the comptroller Carstens — it is apparent, and most patently, that all three refer on their face to the same transaction. The parties, the position to be filled by plaintiff, the salary to be paid him, are all identically set forth; it is hardly possible that such detailed information could refer to another or a different agreement. Even more, the card signed by Carstens notes *57that it was prepared for the purpose of a “ Salary increase per contractual arrangements with Miss Arden ”. That certainly constitutes a reference of sorts to a more comprehensive “ arrangement,” and paroi is permissible to furnish the explanation.

The corroborative evidence of defendant’s assent to the contents of the unsigned office memorandum is also convincing. Prepared by defendant’s agent, Miss Arden’s personal secretary, there is little likelihood that that paper was fraudulently manufactured or that defendant had not assented to its contents. Furthermore, the evidence as to the conduct of the parties at the time it was prepared persuasively demonstrates defendant’s assent to its terms. Under such circumstances, the courts below were fully justified in finding that the three papers constituted the “ memorandum ” of their agreement within the meaning of the statute.

Nor can there be any doubt that the memorandum contains all of the essential terms of the contract. (See N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinley, 246 N. Y. 40; Friedman & Co. v. Newman, 255 N. Y. 340.) Only one term, the length of the employment, is in dispute. The September 26th office memorandum contains the notation, “ 2 years to make good What purpose, other than to denote the length of the contract term, such a notation could have, is hard to imagine. Without it, the employment would be at will (see Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. 117, 121), and its inclusion may not be treated as meaningless or purposeless. Quite obviously, as the courts below decided, the phrase signifies that the parties agreed to a term, a certain and definite term, of two years, after which, if plaintiff did not “ make good ”, he would be subject to discharge. And examination of other parts of the memorandum supports that construction. Throughout the writings, a scale of wages, increasing plaintiff’s salary periodically, is set out; that type of arrangement is hardly consistent with the hypothesis that the employment was meant to be at will. The most that may be argued from defendant’s standpoint is that “ 2 years to make good ”, is a cryptic and ambiguous statement. But, in such a case, paroi evidence is admissible to explain its meaning. (See Martocci v. Greater New York Brewery, 301 N. Y. 57, 63; Marks *58v. Cowdin, supra, 226 N. Y. 138, 143-144; 2 Williston, op. cit., § 576; 2 Corbin, op. cit., § 527.) Having in mind the relations of the parties, the course of the negotiations and plaintiff’s insistence upon security of employment, the purpose of the phrase — or so the trier of the facts was warranted in finding — was to. grant plaintiff the tenure he desired.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

{1} This ease is about a verbal agreement made by Warren and Betty Beaver (Sellers) to sell land for a home site to Michael and Karen Brumlow (Buyers). Sellers reneged on the agreement after Mr. Brumlow left Sellers’ employment and started working for a competitor. The trial court ordered specific performance of the oral agreement, and Sellers appeal. Sellers acknowledge that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find that they made the agreement with Buyers. Nevertheless, Sellers contend that specific enforcement of the verbal agreement is barred pursuant to the statute of frauds. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} Sellers do not challenge the findings of fact made by the trial court. Therefore, the trial court findings of fact are undisputed and are binding on appeal.

{3} Buyer Michael Brumlow worked for Sellers in their race horse transportation business for approximately ten years, beginning in 1994, and ending in 2004. In October 2000, Sellers purchased twenty-four acres of property in the Village of Ruidoso Downs, and in approximately June or July of 2001, Mr. Brumlow asked Seller Warren Beaver if he would sell some of the land to put a home on. Mr. Beaver agreed, and the parties walked the specific boundaries of the property that Sellers would sell to Buyers.

{4} Sellers allowed Buyers to rely on their representations to Buyers that Sellers would sell Buyers the subject property. Buyers went into possession of the land with Sellers’ consent. In reliance on Sellers’ agreement to sell, Buyer Karen Brumlow cashed in her IRA and 401-K retirement plans, at a substantial penalty, to pay for the home and improvements. Buyers purchased a double-wide home and moved it onto the property. Mr. Beaver signed an application with the Village of Ruidoso Downs for placement of the home on the property he agreed to sell to Buyers. In reliance on the agreement, Buyers also skirted the mobile home, poured concrete footers and a concrete foundation for the home, built a deck and two sets of stairs to access the home, had electricity and a water supply run to the property, had a septic system installed, had a propane system installed, brought a Tuff Shed for storage onto the property, and landscaped the property. Mr. Beaver signed the application/approval required by the Village of Ruidoso Downs for the construction of the septic *174system. In reliance on the agreement, Buyers spent approximately $85,000.

{5} Sellers sought legal advice as to the manner in which to sell the property to Buyers, and the parties discussed with Sellers’ attorney the requirement of a survey, and either a real estate contract or a note and mortgage. A fair inference from the record is that formal documents were not prepared and executed because Sellers discovered that their property was encumbered with a mortgage containing a due on sale clause. Throughout their time on the land, Buyers repeatedly requested that their contract be formalized, and Sellers responded, “We will work it out.”

{6} A date certain was never determined for the sale of the property or transfer of title to the property, nor was a price actually determined. However, Mr. Brumlow assumed he would pay whatever the market would bear in that particular neighborhood. He testified he thought the price would be “whatever it was worth.”

{7} Sellers drove by Buyers’ home location daily during the time Buyers were making improvements to the land and setting up the home without ever expressing an intent not to sell the subject property to Buyers. Sellers never attempted to interrupt Buyers’ quiet possession of the property during the years of possession. Sellers allowed Buyers to rely on their representations to Buyers that Sellers would sell Buyers the subject property for years without notifying Buyers they intended to renege on their promise.

{8} In March 2004, Mr. Brumlow gave Mr. Beaver a two-week notice of termination of his employment with Sellers, intending to go to work for a competitor of Sellers in the race horse transportation business. The relationship between the parties rapidly deteriorated, and Sellers changed their mind and decided not to sell the agreed upon tract of land to Buyers because of hurt or anger. Sellers then attempted to restructure the agreement as a “lease” as opposed to a sale, and then attempted to terminate the “lease” and evict Buyers. Sellers prepared and required Buyers to sign an “Agreement.” The “Agreement” required Buyers to pay Sellers $400 per month, and Buyers complied, believing it was payment for the land. When Buyers began writing “Land Payment” on the checks, Sellers stopped cashing the checks and alleged that the “Agreement” was for rental, although the “Agreement” did not contain the words “Rent,” “Rental,” “Lease,” or “Leasehold.” Buyers attempted to amicably resolve the dispute by offering to pay cash in the amount of the fair market value for the property and to have the property surveyed at their expense. Sellers refused.

{9} Sellers then filed a suit for ejectment against Buyers, seeking to remove them from the property by alleging that Buyers were in violation of a rental agreement. Buyers denied the existence of a rental agreement and affirmatively alleged that their occupancy was pursuant to an agreement to purchase the property. Buyers also filed counterclaims which included claims for breach of contract, fraud, and prima facie tort. Sellers pleaded the statute of frauds as a defense.

{10} The trial court concluded that Sellers entered into a contract with Buyers to sell them a specific portion of their land and that Sellers reneged on their agreement to sell the property to Buyers. The trial court further determined that Sellers changed their mind three years after making the contract, chose not to honor it, and attempted to unilaterally restructure the contract into a lease, which was never intended. In committing these acts, the trial court concluded, Sellers committed a prima facie tort, which they knew would harm Buyers. Addressing the statute of frauds defense, the trial court concluded that while the parties had no written agreement, the verbal agreement was proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and that part performance of the contract by both Buyers and Sellers was sufficient to remove the contract from the statute of frauds. Furthermore, the trial court concluded, requiring a cash payment of the fair market value, as determined by a professional appraiser, was a proper equitable remedy.

{11} The trial court allowed Buyers a choice of remedy: money damages for the prima facie tort or specific performance of the contract. Buyers chose specific perform*175anee. The property was appraised at a value of $10,000 by a professional appraiser, and a survey of the property to be sold was prepared. The final judgment directs that Buyers tender to Sellers the amount of $10,000 by depositing that amount into the trust account of Buyers’ attorney within thirty days from the entry of the judgment, and that Sellers prepare and execute a good and sufficient warranty deed to Buyers for the property as described in the testimony of Mr. Brumlow and as depicted on the survey of the property. Upon receipt of the warranty deed executed by Sellers, payment of the $10,000 is to be made to Sellers. All other claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice. Sellers appeal.

{12} Sellers contend that specific enforcement of the oral contract is barred pursuant to the statute of frauds because: (1) Buyers’ part performance was not “unequivocally referable” to the verbal agreement; and (2) the verbal agreement was not certain as to the purchase price and time of performance. Sellers also argue that specific performance was improper because Buyers had an adequate remedy at law in damages. For the following reasons, we disagree and affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{13} Applicability of the statute of frauds raises a question of law, which we review de novo. Ellen Equip. Corp. v. C.V. Consultants & Assocs., 2008-NMCA-057, ¶ 16, 144 N.M. 55, 183 P.3d 940. We review the trial court judgment granting specific performance for an abuse of discretion. See Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 693-94, 652 P.2d 240, 243-44 (1982) (stating that we review the grant of an equitable remedy for an abuse of discretion), overruled on other grounds by Universal Life Church v. Coxon, 105 N.M. 57, 58, 728 P.2d 467, 469 (1986). “An abuse of discretion will be found when the trial court’s decision is contrary to logic and reason.” Three Rivers Land Co., 98 N.M. at 694, 652 P.2d at 244.

THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

{14} The origin of the statute of frauds in the United States was the English statute entitled, “An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries,” 29 Charles 2, ch. 3 (1677). See 72 Am. Jur. 2d Statute of Frauds § 1 (1974). “This statute was originally enacted to prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence on the memory of witnesses by requiring certain enumerated contracts and transactions to be evidenced by a writing signed by the parties.” Weber v. De Cecco, 61 A.2d 651, 653 (N.J.Super.Ct. Ch. Div. 1948). When the statute was enacted in England, it was deemed necessary because the jury system was unreliable, rules of evidence were few, and the complaining party was disqualified as a witness so he could neither testify on direct examination nor be cross-examined. See McIntosh v. Murphy, 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177, 179 (1970) (citing Summers, The Doctrine of Estoppel and The Statute of Frauds, 79 U. Pa. L.Rev. 440, 441 (1931)).

{15} In 1876, our Territorial Legislature enacted Section 1823, C.L. 1884, which directs, “ ‘in all courts of this territory, the common law, as recognized in the United States of America, shall be the rule of practice and decision.’ ” Browning v. Browning, 9 P. 677, 682, 3 N.M. (Gild.) 659, 671 (1886) (quoting Section 1823). Under Section 1823, the Legislature intended “to adopt the common law, or lex non scripta, and such British statutes of a general nature not local to that kingdom, nor in conflict with the [C]onstitution or laws of the United States, nor of this territory, which are applicable to our condition and circumstances, and which were in force at the time of our separation from the mother country.” Browning, 3 N.M. at 675, 9 P. at 684. In Childers v. Talbott, 16 P. 275, 276, 4 N.M. (Gild.) 336, 339 (1888), our Territorial Supreme Court held that the English statute of frauds was adopted in New Mexico. Thus, “[t]he statute of frauds is with us as a part of the common law.” Ades v. Supreme Lodge Order of Ahepa, 51 N.M. 164, 171, 181 P.2d 161, 165 (1947). While the underlying reasons justifying adoption of the statute of frauds no longer exist, retention of the statute has been justified for three primary reasons: the statute still serves an evidentiary function, and thereby lessens the danger of perjured testimony (the original *176reason for the statute); the requirement of a writing causes the parties to reflect on the importance of the agreement; and the writing requirement makes it easier to distinguish agreements which are enforceable from those which are not. See McIntosh, 469 P.2d at 179.

{16} This case involves the fourth section of the English statute of frauds, which in pertinent part states,

No action shall be brought upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them ... unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

Childers, 4 N.M. at 340, 16 P. at 276 (quoting Section 4 of the statute of frauds).

PART PERFORMANCE

{17} Notwithstanding its language, judicial construction of the statute of frauds has resulted in limiting its application in order to overcome the harshness and injustice of a literal and mechanical application of its terms. McIntosh, 469 P.2d at 180. One well settled exception, recognized in New Mexico, is the doctrine of part performance. Alvarez v. Alvarez, 72 N.M. 336, 341, 383 P.2d 581, 584 (1963).

{18} “Where an oral contract not enforceable under the statute of frauds has been performed to such extent as to make it inequitable to deny effect thereto, equity may consider the contract as removed from operation of the statute of frauds and decree specific performance.” Id. In this case, the trial court concluded:

[T]he evidence is clear, cogent and convincing so as to remove the case from the application of the [sjtatute of [f]rauds and that there is significant partial performance by both parties, [Buyers] in expending so much time, energy and money developing the parcel of property and [Sellers] in applying for permission to have the personal property placed on the land, seeking advice of counsel as to the manner in which to sell the property and allowing [Buyers] to rely on their representations and to reside on the property for years. The [c]ourt finds that applying the [s]tatute of [fjrauds would be unfair and inequitable.

{19} Sellers do not contend that proof of the oral contract is lacking; in fact, they concede that the evidence is sufficient. Moreover, Sellers do not argue that the partial performance of Buyers was insufficient to overcome the statute of frauds or that their own partial performance was insufficient. Sellers’ sole argument is that the character of Buyers’ performance was not sufficiently indicative of an oral agreement to sell land to qualify as partial performance. See Burns v. McCormick, 233 N.Y. 230, 135 N.E. 273, 273 (1922) (“Not every act of part performance will move a court of equity, though legal remedies are inadequate, to enforce an oral agreement affecting rights in land. There must be performance ‘unequivocally referable’ to the agreement, performance which alone and without the aid of words of promise is unintelligible or at least extraordinary unless as an incident of ownership, assured, if not existing.”); Woolley v. Stewart, 222 N.Y. 347, 118 N.E. 847, 848 (1918) (“An act which admits of explanation without reference to the alleged oral contract or a contract of the same general nature and purpose is not, in general, admitted to constitute a part performance.”), quoted with approval in Alvarez, 72 N.M. at 342, 383 P.2d at 585.

A court of equity [therefore] requires that a part performance relied on to take the case out of the statute [of frauds] should be of a character, not only consistent with the reasonable presumption that what was done was done on the faith of such a contract, but also that it would be unreasonable to presume that it was done on any other theory.

Alvarez, 72 N.M. at 342, 383 P.2d at 585 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{20} Sellers argue that Buyers’ acts are not “unequivocally referable” to their agreement because Buyers’ actions could also be consistent with those taken by a person who needs a place to live and who is given an *177opportunity to reside on another person’s property. Sellers argue that if there is an alternative explanation for the actions taken in reliance of the oral contract, those actions are not “unequivocally referable” to the contract, and application of the part performance doctrine is improper. We disagree.

{21} In Nashan v. Nashan, 119 N.M. 625, 630-31, 894 P.2d 402, 407-08 (Ct.App.1995), we discussed the interrelationship of the factors that may be considered in determining whether a contract to convey land has been proven and whether it would be inequitable to enforce the contract. We said:

Whatever the purpose of each test, however, the main questions are the same for a court faced with a case such as this one- — • was there actually an oral agreement such as that alleged by the plaintiff, and if so would it be inequitable to deny enforcement to the agreement? The factors should not be applied mechanically to determine whether the plaintiffs performance has met a particular test. Instead, the case must be viewed as a whole to determine whether specific performance of the agreement is required.

Id. at 631, 894 P.2d at 408. Thus, we reject the suggestion that the “unequivocally referable” concept means that outside of the contract, there can be no other plausible explanation for the part performance. In fact, we described the “unequivocally referable” concept in plain language as “meaning that an outsider, knowing all of the circumstances of a case except for the claimed oral agreement, would naturally and reasonably conclude that a contract existed regarding the land, of the same general nature as that alleged by the claimant.” Id. at 630, 894 P.2d at 407 (citing Smith v. Smith, 466 So.2d 922, 925 (Ala.1985)). We did not say that the performance must relate exclusively to the oral contract; rather, the performance must lead an outsider to “naturally and reasonably” conclude that the contract alleged actually exists. Two key specific factors, approved by this Court and many other courts, in coming to such a conclusion, are taking possession of the property, and making valuable, permanent, and substantial improvements to the property. Id. at 630-31, 894 P.2d at 407-08. Where these two factors coincide, specific performance usually results. Id.

{22} In this case, Buyers went into possession of the specific land Sellers agreed to convey with Sellers’ consent. In reliance on the agreement, Buyers cashed IRA and 401-K retirement plans at a substantial penalty, purchased a double-wide mobile home, and with Sellers’ consent, moved it onto the property. Buyers also erected valuable temporary and permanent improvements on the land, and landscaped the property with Sellers’ consent. In reliance on the agreement, Buyers spent approximately $85,000 in purchasing the home and making improvements. We hold Buyers’ actions were sufficient part performance in reliance on the oral agreement to take the agreement outside of the statute of frauds.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE VERBAL AGREEMENT

{23} The trial court concluded:

[T]he terms of the contract were that [Sellers] would sell to [Buyers] the piece of property included in the demarcation of the landmarks as testified to by [Mr. Brumlow]. While the purchase price was never agreed upon, the [c]ourt finds that [Buyers] should pay to [Sellers] the fair market value of the property as determined by an objective appraiser, in one lump sum, within sixty days of the [c]ourt’s decision. Imposing fair market value and requiring a cash payment is the equitable remedy.

Sellers assert that by ruling that the purchase price would be established by an appraisal and that the terms of the payment would be in cash payable within thirty days, the trial court “formulated an agreement between the parties that never existed” and it “enforced terms and conditions on the parties that they had not had a meeting of the minds upon” which is “exactly” what the court in Bellamah v. Schmider, 68 N.M. 247, 360 P.2d 656 (1961) “said the courts should not do.”

{24} Bellamah is inapplicable to the facts of this case. In Bellamah, the parties entered into a written contract for the plaintiff to purchase approximately seventy-six acres of land from the defendants for subdi*178vision purposes for $190,000, with an immediate payment of $19,000 upon execution of the contract, and the balance at $10,000 per year. Id. at 249, 360 P.2d at 657. Upon payment of the initial $19,000, the plaintiff was to receive a deed to 10% of the land, to be selected by him. Id. Before the contract was signed, the plaintiff learned that the defendants did not own two tracts of land within the seventy-six acres, and he tendered the owners of these tracts $17,034, conditioned upon the defendants agreeing to an abatement of the initial amount under the written contract. Id. After the contract was executed, the plaintiff tendered to the defendants $1,966 in full satisfaction of the initial payment. Id. When the defendants refused the tender, the plaintiff filed suit to enforce, by specific performance, the written contract, with an abatement of the initial $17,034. Id. at 249-50, 360 P.2d at 657. The Court said:

[T]he rule is that with certain exceptions, not present under the facts here, a vendee who at the time of the contract knew of vendor’s failure of title to a portion of the land is not entitled, in an action for specific performance, to compensation or abatement of the purchase price. Particularly is the rule denying vendee specific performance and abatement applicable where the vendee not only had actual knowledge of vendor’s lack of title to part of the land at the time of the contract but, likewise, had actual knowledge that vendor would riot acquire title to the missing part so as to be able to convey it to vendee.

Id. at 250-51, 360 P.2d at 658. The Court deemed it “especially significant” that no provision was made in the contract for any reduction in the purchase price if the defendants were unable to convey all of the described tract even though all parties knew at the time the contract was signed that the defendants did not own the two strips. Id. at 251, 360 P.2d at 658. In that context, the Court said, “In suits for specific performance courts will not make a new contract for -the parties which they did not make for themselves nor enforce conditions upon which they had obviously not had a meeting of the minds.” Id.

{25} This case is more analogous to Colcott v. Sutherland, 36 N.M. 370, 16 P.2d 399 (1932), in which our Supreme Court suggested that a claim for specific performance of a contract involving land will not fail for failure to specify a price where the contract is otherwise complete, and there has been part performance of the contract by a transfer of possession. Id. at 374-75, 16 P.2d at 401-02. In Colcott, the buyer alleged that the owner agreed to sell the buyer two acres from a parcel he owned for the sum of $150 per acre, provided that the buyer gave the seller an option to buy the land back if the buyer decided to move a gin he was planning on constructing on the land in the future. Id. at 371-72, 16 P.2d at 400. In reliance on the agreement, the buyer alleged he went into possession of the land and constructed the gin at a cost of $25,000. Id. at 372, 16 P.2d at 400. However, the parties never agreed on a price at which the seller could repurchase the property, nor did they agree on a means for determining the repurchase price. Id. at 374, 16 P.2d at 401. On this basis, the seller asserted that the allegations failed to state a claim for specific performance because there was no contract. Id. at 373-74, 16 P.2d at 400-01. Our Supreme Court said:

The parties having thus agreed, what is the effect of the omission to stipulate the price for a repurchase? [The seller] contends that it results in incompleteness and uncertainty fatal to the remedy of specific performance. [The buyer] says there is no incompleteness or uncertainty, since the law’s implication binds the parties to a reasonable price, and equity has means to determine it. This may be entirely sound.

Id. at 374-75, 16 P.2d at 401 (emphasis added) (citing John Norton Pomeroy & John C. Mann, Specific Performance of Contracts § 148, at 380-82 (3d ed. 1926)). However, the suit was not for specific performance of the seller’s option to repurchase; it was to enforce the contract to sell to the buyer. Accordingly, the Court did not decide whether an action would lie for specific performance of the option itself. Id. While our Supreme Court did not decide the issue, its statement that the buyer’s position “may be entirely sound” and citation to Pomeroy & *179Mann is highly suggestive of its answer. In its entirety, the Pomeroy reference states:

In all contracts of sale, assignment, and the like, the price is, of course, a material term. It must either be fixed by the agreement itself, or means must be therein provided for ascertaining it with certainty. In the absence of such provision, either stating it or furnishing a mode for fixing it, the agreement would be plainly incomplete, and could not be enforced; and if the contract is written, this term must appear in the memorandum or written instrument. This rule, of course, does not apply to gifts, which, under certain circumstances of parol performance by the donee, will, as has already been shown, be enforced by courts of equity. There is an apparent but not real exception to this general proposition. A valid contract of sale may be made without any stipulation as to the price, the law in such case implying that the price is the reasonable value of the thing which is the subject-matter of the agreement. This is, however, no exception to, but rather a special instance of, the foregoing rule; because such a contract does, in fact, by operation of the law, furnish a means of exactly ascertaining and fixing the price.

Pomeroy & Mann, supra, § 148, at 380-82 (footnotes omitted).

{26} O’Keefe v. Aptos Land & Water Co., 134 Cal.App.2d 772, 286 P.2d 417 (1955), applied the Pomeroy section quoted above in a factual scenario substantially identical to the facts before us in this case. The buyer wanted to purchase a parcel of land from the seller, a corporation that was indebted to the buyer, as reflected in its stockholder account. Id. at 419-20. The only other stockholder of the corporation was the buyer’s close and intimate business associate of many years. Id. at 419, 423. It was agreed that the corporation would sell the buyer the parcel of land and charge the buyer’s stockholder account with the agreed value of the property. Id. at 420. In reliance on the agreement, the buyer went into possession, built a home, made extensive and permanent improvements to the property, and took up his residence there. Id. The buyer then said he wanted to acquire two additional adjoining parcels under the same condition, and the parties agreed. Id. At all times, the buyer acted with the knowledge and acquiescence of his business partner and friend, who visited the property frequently, and knew of the buyer’s reliance on the agreement, but failed to make the debit entry onto the seller’s corporate books, although he handled the finances of the corporation. Id. at 423. The buyer ultimately made permanent improvements to the property at a cost of not less than $35,000. Id. at 423. When the buyer died, the seller asserted the buyer did not own the property because he took possession under an oral contract but never paid any consideration for the land. Id. at 419. Judgment quieting title in favor of the buyer’s estate was entered following a bench trial. Id.

{27} The California District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court first observed, “The trial court may have believed that although the parties intended that [the buyer] pay for the property, no definite price had been determined, perhaps had not even been discussed. In such a case, to prevent an inequitable result, the court could imply a reasonable price.” Id. at 422. Directly addressing the seller’s argument that in the absence of a stipulated price, the contract was too uncertain to be enforced, the court said, “The mere fact that an agreement is silent as to price does not necessarily make it unenforceable,” id. at 423, and quoted from Pomeroy & Mann, supra, § 148 to support its statement. The court then held that in that circumstance, the law would imply that the contractual price is deemed to be the reasonable value of the land. O’Keefe, 286 P.2d at 423-24.

{28} We adopt the holding of O’Keefe in this case. Buyers proved to the satisfaction of the trial court by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Sellers entered into a contract to sell specific land to Buyers, as reflected in its conclusions of law quoted above. In addition, there was significant specific part performance by both Buyers and Sellers in reliance on the contract they made. In particular, Buyers cashed their retirement plans, went into possession of the property, moved their home onto the proper*180ty, and made significant improvements to the land at a total cost of approximately $85,000, all with the knowledge and consent of Sellers for several years. Buyers assumed they would have to pay whatever the property was worth, and Sellers consulted an attorney to draft the sale documents. When Buyers repeatedly asked that the contract be formalized, Sellers’ response was, “We will work it out.” Thus, it is through no fault of Buyers that formal contract documents were not written with a set price and terms. Under these circumstances, it was within the equitable jurisdiction of the trial court to set the price at the fair market value as determined by an objective appraiser. We take particular note that Sellers do not dispute on appeal the fairness of the price established by the trial court.

{29} Sellers would have us invalidate what was unquestionably a valid contract based on a mechanical application of contract law. We decline to do so. See Herrera v. Herrera, 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 13, 126 N.M. 705, 974 P.2d 675 (noting that the purpose of the statute of frauds is to prevent fraud and perjury, not to prevent the performance or enforcement of oral contracts that have been made or to create a loophole of escape for a person who seeks to repudiate a contract he admits was made). Sellers do not seem to acknowledge that this is a case under the equitable jurisdiction of the trial court. “In the general juristic sense, equity means the power to meet the moral standards of justice in a particular case by a tribunal having discretion to mitigate the rigidity of the application of strict rules of law so as to adapt the relief to the circumstances of the particular case.” Henry L. McClintock, Principles of Equity § 1, at 1 (2d ed. 1948). We hold that there was no error committed by the trial court by decreeing specific performance of the contract for Sellers to sell, and Buyers to buy, the subject property for its fair market value.

{30} Sellers also assert that the trial court erred in decreeing that the sale would close within sixty days of its decision because that term was absent from the agreement. Largely for ’the reasons already expressed, we reject this argument as well. Moreover, when an agreement does not specify a time for performance, it is implied that it is to be performed within a reasonable time, and what is a reasonable time is a question of fact. See Smith v. Galio, 95 N.M. 4, 7, 617 P.2d 1325, 1328 (Ct.App.1980).

ADEQUACY OF REMEDY AT LAW

{31} Sellers argue that the remedy of specific performance was improper because Buyers have an adequate remedy at law for damages. We disagree.

{32} Sellers point out that the trial court dismissed Buyers’ claim for fraud. Sellers then assert:

It [sic] order for equity to prevent the application of the statute of frauds, the party seeking specific performance must perform his part of the alleged oral agreement to such an extent that it would constitute a fraud on him to permit the other party to use the defense of the statute of frauds, and where the contract is one for the conveyance of real property, the part performance must be of such exceptional or extraordinary nature that they are incapable of compensation measured by definite monetary standards.

In support of this assertion, Sellers refer us to Hubbard v. Mathis, 72 N.M. 270, 383 P.2d 240 (1963). This ease is not applicable. In Hubbard,

[t]he only question on the appeal is whether the services which appellant rendered with respect to the investment properties were of a type which would remove this provision of the alleged contract [of services in exchange for a ten percent interest of the value of the investment properties] from the bar of the statute of frauds. Unless these services are of such a nature as to render them incapable of compensation by any pecuniary standard, or if they cannot be compensated for on the basis of quantum meruit, they are not of the peculiar character requisite to a removal of this contract from the statute of frauds.

Id. at 272-73, 383 P.2d at 242. The Court said:

It is true that equity will regard the bar of the statute of frauds as removed when *181one party has so far performed his part of its terms that it would amount to a fraud on him to permit the other party to use the defense of the statute of frauds. But where the contract is one for conveyance of real estate and the performance relied upon to remove it from the statute of frauds consists of services rendered, the services must be of such exceptional or extraordinary nature that they are incapable of compensation measured by definite monetary standards.

Id. at 273, 383 P.2d at 242 (citations omitted). The ease before us does not involve rendering services in exchange for real property, and Hubbard does not even suggest that specific performance as a remedy is limited to circumstances of actual fraud.

{33} Sellers also argue that Buyers’ part performance “could have been very easily compensated for with money.” However, Buyers did not seek damages for their part performance; they relied on their own part performance, as well as the part performance of Sellers to compel specific performance of the contract to sell them land. Moreover, it is well settled that land is assumed to have special value not replaceable in money. 3 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies § 12.11(3), at 299 (2d ed. 1993).

When real property is the subject matter of the agreement, the legal remedy of damages may be assumed to be inadequate, since each parcel of land is unique. Thus, even though the availability of an equitable remedy such as specific performance generally depends on the inadequacy of any remedy at law, where land is the subject matter of the agreement, jurisdiction of equity to grant specific performance does not depend upon the existence of special facts showing that legal remedy is inadequate.

81A C.J.S. Specific Performance § 56, at 229-30 (2004) (footnotes omitted); see also State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Clark, 79 N.M. 29, 31, 439 P.2d 547, 549 (1968) (“[Mjoney damages is not an adequate remedy in actions for specific performance of land sales contract.”).

{34} For the foregoing reasons, we reject Sellers’ arguments under this point.

CONCLUSION

{35} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

{36} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER and ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judges.

GREENE, Judge.

Patricia Hart and Lowell Thomas Hart (defendants) appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this action brought by Homer Buffaloe (plaintiff) for breach of contract.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages in Franklin County Superior Court on 13 November 1989. Defendants, in their answers, denied the existence of the contract and *54contended the alleged contract was unenforceable because it violated the statute of frauds. The case was tried with a jury during the 28 September 1992 term of Franklin County Superior Court. Plaintiff presented evidence that tended to show that he is a tobacco farmer in Franklin County, North Carolina, has known defendants for about ten years and rented tobacco from them in 1988 and 1989. Plaintiff rented from defendants, pursuant to an oral agreement, five “roanoke box [tobacco] barns” (the barns) located on their farm for use in his tobacco farming operations during the 1988 farming year. The agreement with defendants for rental of the tobacco and the barns was not reduced to writing and was based on a “handshake, oral” agreement. Plaintiff stated, “I had bought some equipment prior to then, and we always done it on a handshake agreement, cash basis. That’s the way it was.” Defendants agreed to provide insurance coverage for the barns in 1988. On 20 October 1988, plaintiff paid the $2,000.00 rent owed for the barns and the $992.64 owed to Patricia Hart (Mrs. Hart) for the tobacco rent.

Plaintiff began negotiating with defendants several days later about purchasing the barns. Plaintiff offered to pay $20,000.00 for the five barns in annual installments of $5,000.00 over a four year period, but did not offer any interest payments. The offer was made in Mrs. Hart’s front yard with only defendants and plaintiff present. Defendants accepted the offer, and both parties shook hands. Plaintiff already had possession of the barns under the rental agreement. Plaintiff did not remove the barns from defendants’ land because he agreed to farm their land in 1989 with tobacco he rented from defendants.

On 3 January 1989, plaintiff applied for a loan with Production Credit Association in order to pay for the barns. He informed Lowell Thomas Hart (Mr. Hart) that he would pay for all the barns if the loan came through. Mr. Hart responded that it “would be fine with us.” On the financial statement portion of the application, he listed the barns, but his loan was denied. Plaintiff and Mr. Hart then reconfirmed that plaintiff was to pay four yearly installments of $5,000.00 for the barns. Because he was unsuccessful in obtaining insurance coverage for the barns, defendants agreed to provide insurance for the five barns for 1989 if plaintiff would reimburse them for the cost. On 20 October 1989, plaintiff promptly reimbursed defendants in full for the insurance coverage. Plaintiff testified that “[ajfter I bought the barns was the only time I agreed *55to pay insurance” and when he rented the barns in 1988, Mrs. Hart “was supposed to pay” the insurance.

During the 1989 tobacco farming season, plaintiff decided to sell the barns and placed a “for sale” ad which expired 23 October 1989 under farm equipment saying “five roanoke box barns, gas, [plaintiffs] phone number” in The News and Observer. The ad ran two lines for four days and resulted in several calls, including contact with Ashley P. Mohorn (Mr. Mohorn), Ronald E. Stainback (Mr. Stainback), and Lawrence Elliot (Mr. Elliot). Plaintiff received a $500.00 check dated 22 October 1989 as a down payment from Mr. Mohorn for two of the barns after quoting a price of $8,000.00 each. Mr. Stainback met with plaintiff, informed him that he would take two barns, and Mr. Elliot would take one. Mr. Stainback wrote plaintiff a check for $1,000.00 dated 25 October 1989, representing a deposit on the three barns. .

Mrs. Hart called plaintiff in the fall of 1989 and asked if he could “straighten up with her,” and he “told her it would be in the next two or three days” and that he was going to sell the barns. She responded that would “be fine with her.” On the morning of 22 or 23 October 1989, plaintiff delivered a check in person to her for the first $5,000.00 due defendants. The payment was in the form of plaintiff’s personal check number 1468, dated 23 October 1989, payable to Patricia Hart, signed by plaintiff, and with written words on the “for” line indicating the check was for payment for the five barns. When plaintiff gave her the check, she asked him if he wanted a receipt, but he said “no, the check would be the receipt.” The next night after plaintiff delivered the check, she called him and told him “she didn’t want to sell [him] the barns; she’d already sold them” to somebody else. Plaintiff received a letter, postmarked 26 October 1989, with the check in it. “She had torn . . . [the check] so bad you couldn’t hardly put it back together,” and “had tore off [plaintiff’s] name — tore off her name, the ‘for’ line, and the date.” Plaintiff was able to piece the check back together to see his signature and the five thousand dollars. He later discovered that defendants sold the five barns to “the same guys” plaintiff had agreed to sell them to.

Randy Baker (Baker) testified that plaintiff told him he had bought the barns and had him repair boxes on the barns. Plaintiff paid Baker for this work. J.R. Fowler, Jr. testified that plaintiff *56told him he had bought the five barns in 1989, was going to pay five thousand dollars a year until they were paid for, was going to sell them, and had run an ad in the paper. Jack Stone (Stone), an auctioneer for the State of North Carolina, testified that “[plaintiff] approached me and said that he had some bulk barns,” “said that he had purchased the barns,” and “asked if [Stone] could sell them.” Stone received a $41,000.00 check for the five barns and held it in escrow until he could inform plaintiff; however, plaintiff told Stone “he thought he already had them sold.” After Stone informed plaintiff to let him know if he had already sold the barns, “[plaintiff] calls back and said that the lady had backed out on him and he couldn’t sell the barns to nobody ‘til he got this straight.” At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict which was denied.

Defendants presented evidence tending to show that “[plaintiff] agreed to pay [Mr. Hart] twenty thousand dollars for the five barns, and he agreed to pay it over a four year period of time”; however, plaintiff later called Mr. Hart and wished to make a new arrangement in that plaintiff would secure a loan and pay for the barns all at one time. When the loan was not approved, plaintiff contacted Mr. Hart and “wanted to know if he could continue the rental agreement that he had had the previous year.” When Mr. Hart’s wife told him that plaintiff “had come over and brought the rent check, and left the five thousand dollars as an enticement to buy the barns, [he] told her that it just wasn’t sufficient considering the fact that there had been a tremendous acreage increase in the tobacco poundage.” He instructed Mrs. Hart to call plaintiff and “tell him we weren’t interested.” His wife tore up the check, put it in an envelope, and mailed it to plaintiff. At the close of all the evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict which was denied.

The jury answered the questions submitted to them as follows:

WAS THERE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF, HOMER BUFFALOE, AND THE DEFENDANTS, LOWELL THOMAS HART AND PATRICIA HART?

ANSWER: YES

*57IF SO, DID HOMER BUFF ALOE ACCEPT THE TOBACCO BARNS UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT?

ANSWER: YES

IF THERE WAS A CONTRACT, DID PATRICIA HART AND LOWELL THOMAS HART ACCEPT A PAYMENT FOR THE TOBACCO BARNS UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT?

ANSWER: YES

IF THERE WAS A CONTRACT, DID LOWELL THOMAS HART AND PATRICIA HART BREACH THIS CONTRACT?

ANSWER: YES

WAS THERE A RENTAL CONTRACT FOR THE TOBACCO BARNS FOR THE YEAR 1989 BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF, HOMER BUFFALOE, AND THE DEFEND-. ANTS, LOWELL THOMAS HART AND PATRICIA HART?

ANSWER: NO_

The jury awarded plaintiff damages of $21,000.00. Defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict which was denied.

The issues presented are whether (I) a personal check signed by plaintiff, describing the property involved and containing an amount representing partial payment is sufficient to constitute a writing under the statute of frauds; and (II) there is substantial relevant evidence that plaintiff “accepted” the barns and defendants “accepted” plaintiff’s check, taking the contract out of the statute of frauds.

Because the barns, the subject of this dispute, are “goods” within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, N.C.G.S. § 25-2-105 (1986), and because the price for the barns is at least *58$500.00, the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-201 apply. The relevant provisions of this section are:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable

(c) with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted (G.S. 25-2-606).

N.C.G.S. § 25-2-201(1), (3)(c) (1986).

I

[1] Defendants argue in their brief that the check delivered by plaintiff to Mrs. Hart fails to meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-201(1), commonly referred to as a statute of frauds, because the check “was not negotiated or endorsed by the Defendants and therefore the signature of the Defendants did not appear on the check.” A check may constitute a writing sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 25-2-201(1) provided it (1) contains a writing sufficient to indicate a contract of sale between the parties; (2) is signed by the party or his authorized agent against whom enforcement is sought; and (3) states a quantity. See N.C.G.S. § 25-2-201 official cmt.; Harper v. Battle, 180 N.C. 375, 376, 104 S.E. 658, 659 (1920) (check collected by defendant with her written endorsement thereon, in which property is described as “Watts Street House” is sufficient writing within statute of frauds); Burriss v. Starr, 165 N.C. 657, 661, 81 S.E. 929, 931 (1914) (note drawn up by defendant, signed by plaintiff, not sufficient to satisfy statute *59of frauds because it did not obligate defendant to perform); Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 508, at 734 (1950).

The only writing in this case is a personal check which, although specifying the quantity of “five barns” on the “for” line, addressed to Patricia Hart, signed by plaintiff, and containing an amount of $5,000.00, is not sufficient to satisfy Section 25-2-201. Defendants, the parties “against whom enforcement is sought,” did not endorse the check, and therefore, their handwriting does not appear anywhere on the check. In fact, the name of defendant, Mr. Hart, is totally absent from the check. Therefore, because the requirement of Section 25-2-201(1) that the writing be “signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker” is absent from the check, the alleged oral contract between plaintiff and defendants is unenforceable under that section. See Manyon v. Graser, 411 N.Y.S.2d 746 (1978) (check for $100 on which was stated “deposit on purchase of nine-foot strip” which was not endorsed and letter stating “not feasible to sell property” were not sufficient memoranda to take oral agreement to sell land out of statute of frauds).

II

[2] Defendants further argue that the part performance exception in Section 25-2-201(3)(c) does not apply because “there was no overt action by the plaintiff, purported buyer, in fact no change from the rental period and therefore no basis for a finding of part performance,” “[t]here is no overt action of the Defendants in giving up possession of the tobacco barns,” and “the delivery of the check by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, Patricia Hart, did not constitute partial payment of the contract because the check was never accepted legally by the Defendants.” We disagree.

To qualify under Section 25-2-201(3)(c), the seller must deliver the goods and have them accepted by the buyer. “Acceptance must be voluntary and unconditional” and may “be inferred from the buyer’s conduct in taking physical possession of the goods or some part of them.” Howse v. Crumb, 352 P.2d 285, 288 (Colo. 1960). The official comment to Section 25-2-201 explains that for the buyer, he is required to deliver “something . . . that is accepted by the seller as such performance. Thus, part payment may be made by money or check, accepted by the seller.” N.C.G.S. § 25-2-201 official cmt. Under this standard, Section 25-2-201(3)(c) presents questions of fact, which are questions for the jury, on the issue of acceptance. *60 See Sass v. Thomas, 90 N.C. App. 719, 724, 370 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1988); Coffman v. Fleming, 226 S.W. 67 (Mo. App. 1920), aff’d, 256 S.W. 731 (Mo. 1923) (question of whether plaintiff accepted check as part payment one of fact to be determined by jury).

In this case, the evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes that plaintiff told several people about purchasing the barns, reimbursed defendants for insurance on the barns, paid for improvements, took possession, enlisted the aid of an auctioneer and the paper to sell the barns, and received deposits from three buyers on the barns. The evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, also establishes that plaintiff delivered a check for $5,000.00 on 22 October 1989 to defendants, and the check was not returned to plaintiff until 26 October 1989. Under the standards for deciding motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Guyther v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 109 N.C. App. 506, 513-14, 428 S.E.2d 238, 242 (1993), this evidence represents substantial relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusions reached by the jury that there was a “contract between the plaintiff, Homer Buffaloe, and the defendants,” plaintiff “accepted] the tobacco barns under the terms and conditions of the contract,” and defendants “accepted] a payment for the tobacco barns under the terms and conditions of the contract.” See Kaufman v. Solomon, 524 F.2d 501 (3d Cir. 1975) (whether possession by seller of check from buyer for 30 days is “acceptance” poses issue for resolution by fact finder); Fournier v. Burhy, 148 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1959) (enforceable contract where plaintiff delivered check to defendant on 21 July 1957 and defendant returned it unendorsed by letter postmarked 6 August 1957); Maryatt v. Hubbard, 205 P.2d 623 (Wash. 1949) (enforceable contract where plaintiff delivered check to defendant on 23 December 1946 and defendant marked through her endorsement on check and returned it to plaintiff on 17 January 1947); Miller v. Wooters, 476 N.E.2d 11 (Ill. App. 1985) (oral contract within exception to statute of frauds where buyer gave check to seller in payment for truck even though buyer stopped payment on check the next day). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motions for directed verdict or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

No error.

Judges COZORT and ORR concur