Thursday, December 26, 2013

Fry v. George Elkins Co. case brief

Fry v. George Elkins Co. case brief summary
327 P.2d 905 (1958)

CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff buyer filed an action against defendant real estate broker to recover a deposit that the buyer had made in connection with his contemplated purchase of defendant sellers' home. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) awarded the buyer the difference between his deposit and the total of the specific items of damages that the sellers sustained. The buyer appealed.

CASE FACTS
The parties' agreement provided that the sale was conditioned upon the buyer's obtaining of financing. The buyer was advised that a specific lender who held an encumbrance on the property was open to refinancing the loan. Instead of contacting the specific lender, the buyer applied to and was rejected by two other banks. The buyer argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the buyer did not in good faith attempt to refinance the existing loan.

DISCUSSION

  • In affirming the judgment, the court held that the trial court reasonably inferred that the buyer did not in good faith try to refinance the loan in question, as the buyer did not contact the lender, attempted to obtain financing from two other banks, and changed his plans regarding his purchase of the property. 
  • The buyer also argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that he refused to perform his obligations under the agreement. 
  • The court held that the trial court properly found that the buyer did not in good faith carry out his obligation to obtain financing, which was essential to the consummation of the deal.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment, which had been entered for the buyer against the sellers and the broker.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.