Category: Real Property Law

Curiale Construction Co. v. The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway Corporation

CONTRACTS; TIME OF THE ESSENCE—Even though it took a seller seven years to be in a position to transfer title, it was entitled to enforce a time of the essence notice that gave its buyer only six weeks to close.

• Opinion Date: September 28, 2001

Procopio v. Tuckahoe Sand & Gravel, Inc.

CONTRACTS; TIME OF THE ESSENCE—Equity demands that a seller respond within a reasonable time to its buyer’s contractually permitted request for a time extension, and a contractually mandated time of the essence closing date will not be enforced if the seller fails to do so.

• Opinion Date: May 16, 2001

Echo Sierra, Inc. v. Hedlund

CONTRACTS; TIME OF THE ESSENCE—A seller’s conduct after execution of a contract can effectuate a waiver of a time limit for satisfaction of a contingency or for enforcement of a closing date.

• Opinion Date: March 9, 2001

Consolidated Mortgage Buying Group v. American General Finance, Inc.

CONTRACTS; STATUTE OF FRAUDS—Where a court believes that parties only intended to be bound in writing, the portion of the Statute of Frauds that permits a party to show the existence of a contract by clear and convincing evidence does not apply.

• Opinion Date: March 12, 2001

Taylor v. Thiemeyer

CONTRACTS; STATUTE OF FRAUDS—An exchange of letters culminating in an unequivocal acceptance of a seller’s terms can form a contract even if the acceptance recites that a formal contract would be prepared by the buyer’s attorney.

• Opinion Date: January 24, 2001

Crown Pacific New Jersey Corporation v. The Morris Companies

CONTRACTS; REPRESENTATIONS; AS-IS—An AS-IS, WHERE-IS contract provision places the burden of investigation on a buyer and the buyer may then not reasonably rely on all of a seller’s representations.

• Opinion Date: October 30, 2001

Singh v. RJR & Sons Corp.

CONTRACTS; REMEDIES; EXCLUSIVITY—Once a contracting party waives its right to seek monetary damages in order to seek specific performance, it will not be able to revive its monetary claim when specific performance is denied.

• Opinion Date: July 6, 2001

Langan v. Milyadis

CONTRACTS; PAROL EVIDENCE—The parol evidence rule does not preclude consideration of matters that can aid in interpretation of an agreement or that can give meaning to its terms.

• Opinion Date: February 21, 2001

Gross v. Lasko

CONTRACTS; NOTICE—Where a mortgage contingency clause has no specific provision requiring notice to the seller of its buyer’s election to waive the contingency, any reasonable notice, written or oral, will be sufficient.

• Opinion Date: March 30, 2001

Sharpe v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services

CONTRACTS; INSPECTIONS—It is generally unreasonable for a home buyer to rely on a lender’s inspection, loan approval, or appraisal in lieu of obtaining an independent home inspection.

• Opinion Date: November 8, 2001