Plaintiff Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadway) appeals the denial by the district court of its request for an order of specific performance of the contract Roadway had with defendants Wilfred E. Jossy, William 0. Jossy, and Roberta Tichenor (collectively “the Jossys”). The district court ruled that the Oregon Statute of Frauds, Or.Rev.Stat. § 41.580(6) (1987), precluded enforcement of the agreement. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1986, Roadway, a trucking company, decided to acquire a truck terminal in the area north of Portland, Oregon. The Jos-sys owned such a terminal and the two sides began to negotiate Roadway’s possible purchase of the terminal. The Jossys engaged the law firm of Greene and Mark-ley (G & M) to represent their interests during the negotiations.

On August 7, 1986, G & M, on behalf of the Jossys, made a formal offer to Roadway to sell the terminal for $2 million. Shortly thereafter, and before Roadway could respond to the offer, the Jossys had G & M revoke the offer because they had heard of another potential purchaser.

Four days later, on August 11, Roadway proposed to purchase the terminal and increased the sale price to $2.2 million. The Jossys authorized G & M to accept Roadway’s offer. The district court found that the parties thereafter entered into an oral agreement for the sale of the truck terminal. In fact, one of the defendants’ attorneys stated it “looks like we have a deal.” The court also concluded that this agreement was later properly memorialized.

Pursuant to the agreement, Roadway immediately took various actions. First, it delivered $100,000 earnest money to G & M. Second, Roadway obtained insurance for the property because the agreement expressly provided that Roadway was to bear the risk of loss upon acceptance. Finally, Roadway hired a security guard for the terminal, though it had not taken formal possession of the property.

During the period in which the negotiations had taken place, the Jossys had received overtures from a competitor of Roadway, Consolidated Freightways (Consolidated), to purchase the property. After the agreement between the Jossys and Roadway had been completed, a representative of Consolidated contacted G & M in an attempt to acquire the terminal. When Consolidated’s representative was informed that the Jossys had already agreed to sell the terminal to Roadway, he pointed out that, contrary to one provision of the Oregon statute of frauds, the Jossys had not given written authorization to G & M to sell the property.

The Jossys then sought to have Roadway and Consolidated enter into a bidding contest for the property. Roadway refused. On August 17, the Jossys signed a contract to sell the property to Consolidated for $2.5 million. As part of the agreement, Consolidated promised to defend the Jossys against any action instituted against them by Roadway and to guarantee the Jossys’ profit even if Roadway were to prevail in that litigation.

On August 18, another attorney representing the Jossys informed Roadway of the agreement with Consolidated. He also returned the $100,000 earnest money, advised Roadway to cancel the insurance it had obtained, and ordered Roadway to stay off the property.

In an expedited trial before a federal magistrate, Roadway’s request for specific performance of the written agreement was denied for failure to comply with the statute of frauds. The magistrate concluded that G & M’s authority to convey the real property was not in writing as required by the statute. The magistrate also rejected Roadway's argument that assuming the risk of loss, obtaining a guard, and delivering $100,000 earnest money was sufficient part performance to take the agreement out of the statute of frauds.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court reviews the application of a rule of law to established facts de novo. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 , 105 S.Ct. 101 , 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984).

A district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Cooling Systems and Flexibles, Inc. v. Stuart Radiator, Inc., 777 F.2d 485, 487 (9th Cir.1985). Under the clearly erroneous standard, we must accept the lower court’s findings of fact unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 , 68 S.Ct. 525, 542 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).

II. The Statute of Frauds and Part Performance

Under Oregon law, an agent’s authority to convey real property on behalf of his or her principal must be in writing. Marshall v. Strauss, 160 Or. 265, 274 , 84 P.2d 502, 506 (1938); Pack v. Cuppett, 43 Or.App. 87, 91-92 , 602 P.2d 314, 316 (1979). The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part:

Or.Rev.Stat. § 41.580 (1987). This requirement must be satisfied even where the agent is the principal’s attorney. Hage v. Harvey, 210 Or. 652, 656-57 , 313 P.2d 448, 450-51 (1957).

Roadway acknowledges that its agreement with the Jossys failed to comply with section 41.580(6). However, it asserts that the acts it performed pursuant to the agreement constitute sufficient part performance to take the agreement out of the statute of frauds.

The Oregon Supreme Court has stated the elements of the part performance doctrine which, if present, will take an agreement out of the statute of frauds:

Luckey v. Deatsman, 217 Or. 628, 633 , 343 P.2d 723, 725 (1959) (citation omitted). Speaking to the doctrine’s application in the land purchase context, the Oregon Supreme Court has also stated that

Hayward v. Morrison, 194 Or. 335, 348 , 241 P.2d 888, 893-94 (1952).

We agree with the district court that Roadway’s most significant acts — assuming the risk of loss and providing insurance for the terminal — do not involve a “substantial” change of position. Risk of loss or other unrealized potentialities simply do not rise to the level of material detriment required by the doctrine. There was no evidence that the insurance expenditure and/or risk of loss somehow hindered or otherwise influenced other actions contemplated by Roadway. For example, it was not contended that Roadway’s risk rating was increased or that Roadway was prevented from insuring other property to its detriment.

The case law as it has developed in Oregon makes abundantly clear that considerably more is required in order to invoke the doctrine of partial performance. See, e.g., Royer v. Gailey, 252 Or. 369, 373-74 , 449 P.2d 853, 855 (1969) (easement created where plaintiff cleared a ravine, excavated area, installed collection tiles, backfilled excavation with gravel, and installed catch basin); Luckey, 217 Or. at 634-35 , 343 P.2d at 726 (easement created where, pursuant to oral agreement, plaintiff built, at his own expense, two concrete reservoirs, contributed to cost of adjoining pipe, paid sum of money to defendant, and agreed to place a portion of pipe over his land; in addition, benefit accrued to defendant by use of water system and monetary payments); Hayward, 194 Or. at 349-50 , 241 P.2d at 894 (1952) (upholding agreement where plaintiff took possession of premises, made improvements thereon, and defendant received and accepted purchase price). Summarizing the requirements of partial performance, the Oregon Supreme Court has stated that

Smith v. Mills, 207 Or. 546, 556 , 296 P.2d 481, 485 , modified, 207 Or. 559 , 298 P.2d 185 (1956) (emphasis added).

Roadway seeks to sidestep the absence of material detriment by arguing that its acts fully establish that its claim is neither perjured nor fraudulent. While it is true that the statute of frauds is partially concerned with the evidentiary value of the acts undertaken by the plaintiff, it is simply incorrect, as the foregoing cases make clear, to assert that the degree of effort or expense is not the primary measure of part performance. See E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 6.9, at 422 (1982) (“[Cjourts have required a measure of reliance that often seems unrelated to any evidentiary function.”). Indeed, a defendant “may admit a verbal agreement, and yet assert its invalidity.” Taggart v. Hunter, 78 Or. 151, 156 , 152 P. 871 , 872 (1915) (quoting Taylor v. Allen, 40 Minn. 433, 434 , 42 N.W. 292 (1889)).

Roadway cites language in Stevens v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 264 Or. 200, 203 , 504 P.2d 749, 750 (1972), for the proposition that the statute of frauds is not to be interpreted literally. This contention reflects a misunderstanding of the part performance doctrine. The non-literal interpretation philosophy regarding the statute of frauds is what spawned the part performance doctrine in the first place, inasmuch as the statute itself makes no reference to such an extension. In fact, in Stevens itself, the Court noted that “[a]n example” of this non-literal application “is the frequent use of the doctrine of part performance.” Id. Roadway fails to distinguish between a liberal interpretation of the statute of frauds (which is accepted through utilization of the part performance doctrine) and a further liberal application of the result of that liberal interpretation— i.e., the doctrine of part performance itself (which is not).

Long ago, one prominent scholar in the area of contract law observed, with respect to the statute of frauds:

2 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 426, at 466 (1950).

This case epitomizes the dangers and inherent unfairness when legal principles must be applied mechanically. What was intended to be a shield against fraudulent claims of conveyance has been turned into a sword which can then be used to shred an otherwise binding agreement, recognized as such by all parties involved. Nevertheless, we are constrained to conclude that the legitimate agreement entered into by the parties is unenforceable, for “a party is bound at its peril to ascertain the extent of an agent’s authority.” Coleman v. Parry Center for Children, 43 Or.App. 775, 779 , 604 P.2d 424, 426 (1979).

III. Attorneys’ Fees

Despite their insistence that the agreement is unenforceable, the Jossys boldly ask to be awarded their attorneys’ fees as provided for in the agreement. Defendants “may not avoid the contract and, at the same time, claim the benefit of the provision for attorney fees.” Bodenhamer v. Patterson, 278 Or. 367, 378 , 563 P.2d 1212, 1215 (1977). See also Pickinpaugh v. Morton, 268 Or. 9, 15-18 , 519 P.2d 91, 94-95 (1974); John Deere Co. v. Epstein, 91 Or.App. 195, 202-03 , 755 P.2d 711, 714-15 (1988). The request for attorneys’ fees is therefore denied.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the district court’s ruling is AFFIRMED.

. An agreement may also fall without the statute of frauds if the elements of equitable estoppel have been met. Although Roadway alleged equitable estoppel in its complaint and briefed the issue in the district court, it failed to raise the issue at trial or to complain about the magistrate’s failure to make any findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the issue. As a result, Roadway has waived this argument and we decline to address it on appeal. Pierce County Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Health Trust v. Elks Lodge, 827 F.2d 1324, 1328-29 (9th Cir.1987); Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 , 1115-16 (9th Cir.1987); Robert's Waikiki U-Drive v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, 732 F.2d 1403, 1408-09 (9th Cir.1984). . Similarly, Roadway’s other contentions of part performance — the delivery of 1100,000 earnest money and the posting of a guard at the site— do not constitute sufficient performance. Roadway does not provide any justification that these acts involved a substantial change of position or other material detriment. Roadway’s check for |100,000 was tendered on Friday and returned uncashed on the following Monday. In addition, Roadway presented no evidence that it actually incurred any expense for the posting of a guard. . Because we conclude that Roadway’s actions did not involve a substantial change in position, we need not determine whether the other requisite elements of part performance — that the acts be referable to the oral agreement and the existence of equitable grounds for enforcing the agreement — have been met.