Legal Opinion

Nielsen v. Farrington

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1990No. E006215PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.

This is a dispute between a buyer and seller of real estate regarding what portion, if any, of the buyer’s deposit can be retained by seller as damages for buyer’s breach of the contract. Buyer contends the court erred in allowing seller damages for adverse tax consequences the seller incurred because the property was not sold in 1986 and erred in not allowing the buyer an offset or credit for the “savings” the seller realized upon resale resulting from the absence of a broker’s commission in the resale. Buyer also contends there is no substantial evidence to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Walker v. Signal Companies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1978
  2. Caplan v. SchroederCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Sackett v. SpindlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Askari v. R & R LAND CO.California Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. Spurgeon v. DrumhellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Horning v. ShilbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Robinson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2001
  3. Horning v. ShilbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API