Leeber v. Deltona Corp. case brief summary
546 A.2d 452 (1988)
CASE FACTS
When the buyers failed to close on the purchase of a condominium on the date chosen by the developers, the developers notified the buyers that the contract was cancelled and that the buyers' 15 percent down payment would be retained as liquidated damages. The developers sold the unit to others, and the buyers sued the developers for the return of the deposit, for failing to find another buyer before the closing date, and for breach of fiduciary duty based upon the developers' status as the buyers' real estate agent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment that was in favor of the developers as to the breach of an alleged contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and vacated the judgment that was in favor of the buyers in seeking the return of their deposit. The case was remanded to the superior court for entry of judgment in favor of the developers.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
546 A.2d 452 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant developers sought review of a
judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County (Maine), which
ruled in favor of plaintiff condominium buyers on their complaint for
the return of a deposit on the purchase of a condominium. The buyers
cross-appealed from the judgment against them on the remaining two
counts of the complaint for breach of an alleged contract and breach
of fiduciary duty.CASE FACTS
When the buyers failed to close on the purchase of a condominium on the date chosen by the developers, the developers notified the buyers that the contract was cancelled and that the buyers' 15 percent down payment would be retained as liquidated damages. The developers sold the unit to others, and the buyers sued the developers for the return of the deposit, for failing to find another buyer before the closing date, and for breach of fiduciary duty based upon the developers' status as the buyers' real estate agent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- The superior court, at the close of the buyers' evidence, found in favor of the developers on the second and third causes of action and awarded the buyers the balance of their deposit after determining the developers' damages in reselling the unit.
- The superior court found the liquidated damages clause unconscionable.
- The parties appealed.
- The court vacated the judgment as to the liquidated damages issue, finding that, under Florida law, the clause was enforceable because the buyers failed to show that it was unconscionable.
- The clause was reasonable on its face and not a penalty, and the developers were therefore allowed to retain the full amount of the deposit.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment that was in favor of the developers as to the breach of an alleged contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and vacated the judgment that was in favor of the buyers in seeking the return of their deposit. The case was remanded to the superior court for entry of judgment in favor of the developers.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment