Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
New York Court of Appeals - 502 N.E.2d 184, 68 N.Y.2d 373
Tags: Contracts, Material breach
tl;dr:
Defendant agreed to purchase a home with a cancellation option if real estate taxes were greater than a specified amount. The taxes were greater but Defendant attempted to cancel after the deadline contemplated by the contract.Video Summary
Case Summary
In Maxton Builders, Inc. v. Lo Galbo (1986), the highest state court in New York dealt with a breach of a real estate contract case.
The Defendant (Richard and Cynthia Lo Galbo) contracted to purchase a home from the Plaintiff (Maxton Builders, Inc.), but if the real estate taxes exceeded $3,500, the buyers would retain an option to cancel. When the taxes came out greater than the specified amount, the Lo Galbos attempted to cancel, but Maxton Builders wanted to recover the down payment received from the Lo Galbos since the cancellation was not received before the bargained for deadline.
The court looked at whether the seller, Maxton Builders, was allowed to keep the down payment after the buyers, Richard and Cynthia Lo Galbo, canceled the contract. The buyers argued that they had the right to cancel due to the property's tax assessment, but the court found that they didn't follow the contract's guidelines for canceling.
This case is important because it demonstrates how courts interpret and enforce real estate contracts, and apply the concept of liquidated damages to prevent unfair situations when a contract is broken. Additionally, it highlights the courts' adherence to longstanding precedents and the upholding of contractual rights and obligations. The ruling reestablished the importance of the Lawrence v. Miller rule.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff sold a house to the defendants, who cancelled the contract and stopped payment on the down payment check. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the down payment amount, citing precedent that a vendee cannot recover their down payment if there is willful default or repudiation of the contract. The defendants argued that they had properly exercised their right to cancel the contract according to the rider, but the court found their cancellation ineffective due to noncompliance with the contract's three-day period. The court only granted summary judgment for the down payment amount, and not for additional financial losses claimed by the plaintiff. The longstanding rule in New York denies a defaulting buyer the recovery of the down payment, even though this rule has been criticized for being out of harmony with the general principle of actual damages. Critics advocate for the "modern rule," which allows the defaulting party to recover for part performance in excess of actual damages, but places the burden of proof on them to show the net benefit conferred. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) also permits recovery for part performance, but the recovery of down payments on real estate contracts remains an anomaly, and the burden of proof is on the defaulting party to show that the amount retained by the other party was greater than the injury suffered by the breach.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.