WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? In Dare’s response to Houseman’s complaint, he admitted that he had orally promised her that she could have the dog. Suppose that he had not admitted to this promise. On what principle should a trial court base a finding that one of the parties is more credible on this point?

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION What might the award to Houseman of the value of the dog instead of its possession mean to Dare, and what might it indicate to others who could be tempted to breach their agreements?

Doreen Houseman and Eric Dare were together for thirteen years. They bought a house and were engaged to marry. They also bought a pedigreed dog for $1,500, which they registered with the American Kennel Club as joint owners. When Dare decided to end the relationship, they agreed that he could pay Houseman for her interest in the house and she would move out. They also agreed that she could take the dog. She asked him to put the agreement about the dog in writing, but he told her that she could trust him. She allowed him to take the dog for visits. After one such visit, Dare kept the dog. Houseman filed a suit in a New Jersey state court against Dare. In a summary judgment, the court concluded that specific performance is not available as a remedy for the breach of an oral agreement about the possession of a dog and awarded Houseman $1,500. She appealed.