Legal Opinion
Christophersen v. Blount
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 20, 1990No. 14003PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCovello, J.
This is an action for the specific performance of a real estate contract. The principal issue is whether the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff buyer’s nineteen month delay in carrying out a condition precedent to the defendant sellers’ obligation to perform bars his claim against them for specific performance. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that an unreasonable time had passed, that the defendant sellers’ duty to perform had terminated, and that the plaintiff, therefore, could not obtain specific performance of the contract.
*510On April 21, 1983, the defendants agreed…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Breen v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Brauer v. FrecciaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Lach v. CahillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Robert Lawrence Associates, Inc. v. Del VecchioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Ravitch v. Stollman Poultry Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Russell v. RussellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- American General Corp. v. Continental Airlines Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1992
- Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves v. Tuck-it-away, Bridgeport, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Tarpon Bay Partners LLC v. Zerez Holdings CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2023
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.