On February 1, 2004, Zhang entered into a contract to buy former realtor Frank Sorichetti's Las Vegas home for $532,500. The contract listed a March clos- ing date and a few household furnishings as part of the sale. On February 3, Sorichetti told Zhang that he was terminating the sale "to stay in the house a little longer" and that Nevada law allows the rescission of real property purchase agreements within three days of contracting. Sorichetti stated that he would sell the home, however, if Zhang paid more money. Zhang agreed. Another contract was drafted, reciting a new sales price, $578,000. This contract added to the included household furnishings drapes that were not listed in the February 1 agreement, and it set an April, rather than March, closing date. The primary issue before the court was whether a real property purchase agreement is enforceable when it is executed by the buyer only because the seller would not perform under an earlier purchase agreement for a lesser price. Should the court enforce the second contract? Why or why not?
Answer to relevant QuestionsIn 2001, Joseph Toscano, who was employed as the general manager of a Fields Pianos store in Santa Ana, was very unhappy with his job and decided to find other employment. Toscano contacted Michael Greene, the president of ...If all you know about a man is that his neighbors think he is crazy, you do not know whether a contract he entered into was valid, voidable, or void. Why not? Horst Grasz reached an agreement with Bert Allen Toyota, Inc., to purchase a 2003 Toyota Tacoma for $16,971, less a $1,000 rebate, plus taxes and fees. The sales manager entered the numbers into a computer and came back with ...A seller agreed to give a buyer the first right to purchase the remainder of her property if she chose to sell it. When the seller became deceased, the buyer filed suit against the estate, seeking the option to purchase. The ...The Laths were the owners of a farm that they wanted to sell. Mrs. Mitchell considered purchasing the land but found that an ice house located across the road was objectionable. Mitchell argued that the Laths orally agreed ...
Post your question