We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs breached the contract and that defendant Birnbaum is therefore entitled to retain the down payment. Plaintiffs argue that an issue of fact exists concerning the scope and meaning of the September 12 letter of their counsel, but we find no ambiguity, misunderstanding, or antecedent fraud. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that this $630,000 contract is governed by UCC article 2, forfeiture of the deposit cannot be equated with an imposition...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.