Contract memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re: Teri Firefighter
FACTS:
Teri is a firefighter who lives and works in Boston, Ma. She is selling her home and found a buyer named Jack. Teri received an offer from Jack for $300,000. Teri accepts the offer and they sign a contract to that effect.
After the contract is signed, Teri learns of a Boston rule that all firefighters must live within the Boston city limits. Teri decides not to move and contacts Jack to let him know she won’t be moving after all.
Jack sues Teri in municipal court, asking for specific performance in accordance with the original deal. Teri argues that, although specific performance is usually appropriate in land sales contract cases, the judge has the discretion to deny specific performance.
ISSUE #1:
Whether Jack is due specific performance?
RULES:
In Raynor v. Russell, 353 Mass. 366 (Mass. 1967), a police officer had entered into a contract to sell his home. The police officer was planning to move to property in a town more than ten miles from the city, but because a certain statute was accepted by the city in effect requiring its police officers to live within ten miles of it, was not an adequate ground for denying specific performance of the contract sought by the purchaser in a suit in equity.
Also stated in Raynor, The court held that ”the prospective purchasers were entitled in lieu of the relief granted by the final decree to specific performance upon payment of the purchase price less the amounts already paid as a deposit, as well as interest thereon.” The court also concluded that “there was not any hardship shown sufficient reason for denying specific performance.” The court held that because specific performance was to be granted, the price set by the oral agreement made by the buyers must be paid.
In Joseph A. Cardillo Revocable Trust v. Cardillo, 17 LCR 55 (Mass. Land Ct. 2009), is that Joseph seeks specific performance of the agreement and an order that
To:
From:
Re: Teri Firefighter
FACTS:
Teri is a firefighter who lives and works in Boston, Ma. She is selling her home and found a buyer named Jack. Teri received an offer from Jack for $300,000. Teri accepts the offer and they sign a contract to that effect.
After the contract is signed, Teri learns of a Boston rule that all firefighters must live within the Boston city limits. Teri decides not to move and contacts Jack to let him know she won’t be moving after all.
Jack sues Teri in municipal court, asking for specific performance in accordance with the original deal. Teri argues that, although specific performance is usually appropriate in land sales contract cases, the judge has the discretion to deny specific performance.
ISSUE #1:
Whether Jack is due specific performance?
RULES:
In Raynor v. Russell, 353 Mass. 366 (Mass. 1967), a police officer had entered into a contract to sell his home. The police officer was planning to move to property in a town more than ten miles from the city, but because a certain statute was accepted by the city in effect requiring its police officers to live within ten miles of it, was not an adequate ground for denying specific performance of the contract sought by the purchaser in a suit in equity.
Also stated in Raynor, The court held that ”the prospective purchasers were entitled in lieu of the relief granted by the final decree to specific performance upon payment of the purchase price less the amounts already paid as a deposit, as well as interest thereon.” The court also concluded that “there was not any hardship shown sufficient reason for denying specific performance.” The court held that because specific performance was to be granted, the price set by the oral agreement made by the buyers must be paid.
In Joseph A. Cardillo Revocable Trust v. Cardillo, 17 LCR 55 (Mass. Land Ct. 2009), is that Joseph seeks specific performance of the agreement and an order that