Contract Law: Case Summary
Assignement 1 contracts
Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009)
CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the contract for the construction and sale of a home that was at issue in this case was void, invalid, and unenforceable. Plaintiff also alleged that he was entitled to rescission and cancellation of the same contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the contract of sale. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and demurred to defendants ' counterclaim.
OVERVIEW: Defendants sought to apply equitable principles in seeking specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the instant motion for partial summary judgment and demurrer was controlled, at this stage of the proceedings, by defendants ' assertion that they were entitled to equitable relief in that they had fully performed and called for settlement. 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, despite a lack of mutuality of remedy at the time the contract was formed, complete performance may, if shown, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for partial summary judgment and overruled the demurrer without prejudice to raise the issue of want of mutuality and consideration at trial.
OUTCOME: The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment and overruled the demurrer without prejudice
Opinion of judge horne
13. Default: If Buyer fails to comply with this contract, Buyer will be in default, and Seller may either (a) enforce specific performance, seek such other relief as may be provided by law, [*505] or both, or (b) terminate this contract and retain the entire deposit specified in paragraph 3A as liquidated damages, thereby releasing both parties from this contract. If, due to
Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009)
CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the contract for the construction and sale of a home that was at issue in this case was void, invalid, and unenforceable. Plaintiff also alleged that he was entitled to rescission and cancellation of the same contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the contract of sale. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and demurred to defendants ' counterclaim.
OVERVIEW: Defendants sought to apply equitable principles in seeking specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the instant motion for partial summary judgment and demurrer was controlled, at this stage of the proceedings, by defendants ' assertion that they were entitled to equitable relief in that they had fully performed and called for settlement. 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, despite a lack of mutuality of remedy at the time the contract was formed, complete performance may, if shown, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for partial summary judgment and overruled the demurrer without prejudice to raise the issue of want of mutuality and consideration at trial.
OUTCOME: The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment and overruled the demurrer without prejudice
Opinion of judge horne
13. Default: If Buyer fails to comply with this contract, Buyer will be in default, and Seller may either (a) enforce specific performance, seek such other relief as may be provided by law, [*505] or both, or (b) terminate this contract and retain the entire deposit specified in paragraph 3A as liquidated damages, thereby releasing both parties from this contract. If, due to