CUMBEST V. HARRIS
363 So.2d 294 (1978)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the sale of hi-fi equipment. Cumbest (P),
seller, sued Harris (D), buyer, for specific performance of a contract. The bill of
complaint was dismissed.
FACTS: Cumbest (P) and Harris (D) contracted for the sale and purchase of certain hi-fi
equipment. The transaction was in effect a loan agreement with P having the right to
repurchase the equipment on or before 5:00 p.m. Monday June 7, 1976. When it came time for P
to repay D, D deliberately evaded P. In desperation, P deposited the monies with D's
landlord on the evening of June 7. P sued for specific performance on grounds that the
equipment took several years to assemble. P testified that the parts of the system could not
function alone, that many of the system parts could no longer be replaced, and that many of
the parts that are replaceable take from 6 months to two years to assemble the parts. D put
on no witnesses. The court did not rule in P's favor. P 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