Ihlenfeldt v. Guastella
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtJ. H. Gillis, J.
This is an assumpsit action in which the plaintiffs-vendees are seeking to recover a $5,000 deposit they paid pursuant to the terms of a preliminary purchase agreement. The defendants-vendors prevailed below upon the trial court’s finding of no cause of action, entered November 20, 1969.
Under the terms of the agreement between the parties plaintiffs’ deposit was to serve as liquidated damages for the defendants should the plaintiffs default. Conversely, upon a default by the defendants, the deposit was to be returned immediately to the plaintiffs in full termination of the agreement. Had…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Silfver v. DaenzerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Mehling v. Evening News Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Hayes v. BeyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Deane v. Rex Oil & Gas Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Escher v. BenderMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Raul International Corp. v. Sealed Power Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984
- Chase v. Matsu Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Smith v. Penn Cent. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988