A Letter Of A Contract For The Sale Of Real Property

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

-The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant

I submit this affidavit in support of Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

In the Hoffman Vs. Sun Valley Company case, where the Sun Valley Company won, despite there being an oral agreement. The prerequisite memorandum form for the sale of the Rudd Mountain property, was not signed to fully close the deal. Thus, the oral agreement was declared void by failure to comply with the statute of frauds.

• Contracts were exchanged on 2 May 2005 for the purchase of property for $2,130,000 between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the principle) who lists her property for sale and enters into an agreement with an agent to facilitate a sale with a third party. Over the course of the agency agreement a prospective buyer inspected the property but didn’t make an offer before the agency agreement expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency agreement expires. The prospective buyer later decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, but once discovering that the agreement between the principle and agent had expired brought legal action against the agent.

Moran had been provided with a complete list of her husband’s financial and property interests. Rudder, 217 P.3d at 195; Coward 582 P.2d at 834. The law governing this dispute, ORS 108.725 does not explicitly require a spouse to provide value figures with regards to their financial and property interests. Although, Ms. Moran did not possess the value figures with regards to the Mr. Moran’s financial and property interests she already possessed information required by law. Further, Ms. Moran’s business experience suggests that she could be reasonably expected to discover the value figures of Mr. Moran’s easily if she desired to do

If Seller fails to comply with this contract for any other reason, Seller will be in default and Buyer may, as Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy, terminate this contract and receive from Seller the deposit, thereby releasing both parties from the contract.

Reference to Another Agreement Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. (Holly Hill), purchased land from Rogers and Blythe. As part of its consideration, Holly Hill gave Rogers and Blythe a promissory note and purchase money mortgage. The note read, in part, “This note with interest is secured by a mortgage on real estate made by the maker in favor of said payee. The terms of said mortgage are by reference made a part hereof.” Rogers and Blythe assigned this note and mortgage to Charter Bank of Gainesville (Charter Bank) as security in order to obtain a loan from the bank. Within a few months, Rogers and Blythe defaulted on their obligation to Charter Bank. Charter Bank sued to recover on Holly Hill’s note and

FACTS: Theadores W. Ross conveyed her home to Peter R. Cournoyer via a quitclaim deed. In addition to the standard statement consideration, i.e., “consideration of $10.00 and other valuable consideration,” the deed also stated, “This quitclaim deed is being given with the consideration being love and affection.” After the deed was recorded, Cournoyer sold the property to Luis and Gladys Perez for $50,000.00. The purchase money came from mortgage that the Perezs gave to Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association (plaintiff). Thereafter, Mrs. Ross brought suit to rescind and cancel her deed to Cournoyer citing the absence of valuable consideration.

Michaels Corp. v. Trans World Metals, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12909 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 1989),stated an Illinois writing in confirmation is defined as one, which indicates that the parties reached a prior oral agreement, that is, a writing which "evidences a contract." While writing generally must refer to an existing contractual agreement, it need not expressly state that it is a confirmation.

Busman goes on to say that the mere return of a deposit does not constitute consideration, by stating, “…the Court rejects Mr. Busman's argument that the limitation clause does not destroy mutuality but merely limits Beeren's remedy to the recognized measure of damages for a purchaser's breach of a contract for sale of real estate: the return of the purchaser's deposit …seller's breach of contract to convey realty includes not only the return of the deposit, but also interest thereon. Pursuant to the above clause, Mr. Busman was not required to pay interest which interest might have constituted consideration.

Prospective purchaser of real property brought action for breach of contract against vendors. In this case the Montgomery’s received an offer from English regarding their property and after receiving the offer decided to make several changes to the document. Some of the changes included (1) deleting certain items from the personal property section of the contract; (2) deleting a provision regarding latent defect; (3) deleting a provision regarding building inspections; and last adding a specific “As is” rider. Later the Montgomery’s signed the counteroffer and gave it to English’s real estate agent, Melanie Brown. That same day the counteroffer was delivered to English. English reviewed and signed/initialed most of changes but decided

Numerous pieces of evidence led me to my conclusion about the contract in question. The first item of business a judge would attend to when making a decision is to decide whether a contract is present between any of the parties, and who those parties are. The contract under examination is between buyers Jon and Marsha and the seller Boren Deal. The documents pertaining to this case include the REPC as well as Addendum No. 1 which states the seller’s terms, and Addendum No. 2, the