611 A.2d 435 (1992)
On appeal, the buyer argued that because the seller's inability to convey title to the premises under the terms of the contract was not excused by an anticipatory breach, it was not in default and was thus entitled to its deposit by reason of its later cancellation.
- Upon review, the court found the buyer's argument without merit.
- The trial court's findings supporting the conclusion that the buyer anticipatorily breached the contract were sufficiently supported by the evidence presented.
- During the week prior to the closing, the buyer's representatives stated that they were unable to close on the set closing date.
- Such statements were clear and unequivocal manifestations of the buyer's inability to close.
- The express language of paragraph 4 of the contract evidenced the parties' intent that the buyer's duty to tender full payment of the purchase price was a condition precedent of the seller's obligation to convey title to it.
- Because the buyer failed on the date of closing to tender the balance due on the purchase price, the seller was excused of its obligation to perform under the contract.
The court affirmed the award of liquidated damages to the seller.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.