Unilateral Promise to Sell Validity Without Beneficiary Signature

A lower court determined that a written promise to sell, containing a specified price and signed by the seller but lacking the signature of the one receiving the promise, was not valid as a unilateral promise to sell, leading to the refusal to order specific performance of the sale. The high court overturned this decision, reasoning that while the formality of a notarized act is required for the transfer of real estate, a simple private writing is sufficient to establish the unilateral promise to sell, provided the essential elements like the property and price are present and the promise has been accepted by the beneficiary, meaning the absence of the beneficiary's signature on the promise document itself does not invalidate the underlying agreement to sell when the promise was otherwise accepted.