Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 17:39, September 12, 2020 by Mitchman (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of Connecticut |citation=181 Conn. 501*435 A.2d 1022 (1980) |date=1980 |subject=Contracts |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overtur...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc
Court Supreme Court of Connecticut
Citation 181 Conn. 501
435 A.2d 1022 (1980)
Date decided 1980

Facts

Plaintiffs had agreed to purchase from the defendants a condo for $78,800. They paid a down payment of $7,880 to which the contract claimed was liquidated damages should the contract become breached. The plaintiff eventually breached the contract because of employment in a different location.

Procedural History

Judgment for the plaintiff for their deposit plus interest.

Issues

Whether the remedy of restitution should be permitted when the buyer breaches a contract in good faith, but a liquidated damages clause provides that the deposit is damages in the event of breach.

Holding

Judgment is set aside.

Rule

The purchaser’s right to recover in restitution requires the purchaser establish that the seller has been unjustly enriched.

To prove unjust enrichment, the purchaser, because he is the party in breach, must prove that the damages suffered by his seller are less than the moneys received from the purchaser.

There was no evidence to demonstrate that the seller was injured at the time of breach, and the remedy of restitution may be upheld if the seller was unjustly enriched by the down payment.