Petitioner is entitled to return of the downpayment because the contract of sale specifically provided that time was of the essence and because respondent seller was unable to prove that she was the sole owner of the coop shares either at the time of execution of the contract (as represented therein) or upon the stipulated law day for closing. Furthermore, a restraining notice issued by a bank the day before closing barring the transfer of the shares was facially valid, and...
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.
