RAGOSTA V. WILDER 156 Vt. 390, 592 A.2d 367 (1991). CASE BRIEF

RAGOSTA V. WILDER

156 Vt. 390, 592 A.2d 367 (1991).

NATURE OF THE CASE: Wilder (D), seller appealed from a judgment which found that a binding contract existed between D and Ragosta (P), buyers, to sell a certain piece of real property and ordered D to convey the real property to P.

FACTS: In 1985, Ragosta (P) first became interested in buying The Fork Shop from Wilder (D). That negotiation ended with nothing being done. In 1987, P again learned that D was interested in selling. P mailed an offer and a deposit check of $2,000 to buy the property. P made arrangements to find financing. D returned the check but offered to sell the property at any time up until November 1, 1987 for a specified sum if P would appear with D at the bank with the money if D did not convey the property to another. P got this letter and called D. The court found that P told D that the terms and conditions of his offer were acceptable and that they would in fact prepare to accept the offer. D assured P that there was no one else interested in The Fork Shop. P then informed D that they could not close on October 8th but would come to close on October 10th. On October 8, D informed P that he would not sell the property. The court found that at that time, D was aware that P had gone to the bank and were prepared to close. P showed up at the bank with the monies required on October 15th, but D failed to appear. P sued for specific performance. The trial court found for P: D could not revoke his offer of October 8th because P had begun performance (arranging financing). 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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner