Editing Chirichella v. Erwin
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
}} | }} | ||
''' | '''Relevant Facts''' | ||
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance for the sale of real estate from the defendants. The Chirichellas had contracted to sell their home to the Erwins for a certain sum, and later refused to sell because of another real estate deal that fell through. The language in their contract stated the date of the sale was to coincide with settlement of the Chirichellas new home in Kettering, approximately in October of 1971. For other reasons, the plans for the new home in Kettering never finalized, and the Chirichellas refused to uphold their contract with the Erwins, claiming that their contract included a condition precedent. | |||
The language was not intended to allow them to void the contract, but was intended to delay settlement for a reasonable period of time while the new house was completed. | '''Procedural History'''Trial court decree for specific performance.'''''''''''''''Issues'''Whether the language used in the contract imposed a condition precedent or merely allowed them to delay settlement for a reasonable period of time while the new house was completed.'''''''''''''''Holding/Decision'''The language was not intended to allow them to void the contract, but was intended to delay settlement for a reasonable period of time while the new house was completed. | ||
