ARGENTINIS V. GOULD
592 A.2d 378 (Conn. 1991)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Gould (D) appealed an affirmation of a decision that D substantially
breached a contract to Argentinis (P) but still allowed P to recover damages unreduced by
the outstanding balance of the contract price.
FACTS: D contracted to build a house for P. P agreed to pay d a total of $344,000:
$294,000 in cash as the construction progressed, and $50,000 by a promissory note secured by
a purchase money mortgage. On the date of the transfer of title in April, 1981, P was unable
to move into the house because D had not completed various items of construction. The
parties then executed a supplemental agreement and reduced the total contract price by $4000
to $340,000. The parties also 'annulled' the original note and P agreed to execute a
substitute note and purchase money mortgage in the amount of $43,000, to be held in escrow
along with a $3000 cash payment by Ps pending D's completion of certain specified items of
construction. In July, 1981, P moved into the house. The escrowed cash and documents were
released leaving an unpaid balance of $43,000 under the contract. Some of the items of
construction specified in the supplemental agreement, however, remained incomplete. P also
discovered numerous defects in the structure and substructure of the house. D refused to
make repairs and P then refused to make payments on the mortgage. P sued D alleging that D
had not substantially performed the contract and seeking damages for breach of contract. P
commenced the second underlying action to foreclose the mortgage alleging that P had
defaulted in payment. The referee found that D had breached the contract by failing to
render substantial performance. The referee awarded P $73,068.75 in damages measured by the
cost of repairing the construction defects. The referee also found in favor of P on D's
foreclosure on the ground that D's failure of substantial performance defeated his right to
recover the balance of the contract price and hence his right to foreclose the mortgage. D
appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment