874 F.2d 457 (1989)
As part of the real estate contract, the sellers were required to remove any environmental contamination at their own expense. The sellers were also allowed to terminate the contract if the cost of the clean up became economically impracticable. On review, the purchaser argued that the district court erred in finding that the clean up cost made performance economically impracticable. The purchaser also argued that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the sellers were acting in bad faith when they terminated the contract.
- The court found that the sellers were empowered with broad discretion to terminate the contract under their best business judgment.
- However, this discretion was tempered by the implied duty to act in good faith.
- The circumstances of this termination raised many questions of fact concerning the motive behind the termination.
- These questions went directly to the issue of whether the sellers breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing by terminating the contract.
- Therefore, the district court's entry of summary judgment on the issue of whether the sellers terminated the contract in good faith was reversed.
The district court's entry of summary judgment on the issue of good faith was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.