Legal Opinion
Hackney v. Morelite Construction
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 19, 1980No. 79-904PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, Associate Judge.
After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the trial court ruled that a letter of intent regarding certain realty owned by appellee Morelite Construction was not an enforceable option contract. Arthur G. Hackney and Sandra A. Conley, the would-be purchasers, appeal that ruling. Concluding that the statute of frauds and parol evidence objections were waived by appellee's stipulations at trial, we hold that the trial court’s limited inquiry-into the enforceability of the written document only-was erroneous and that there was a valid option contract here; consequently, we…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Trossbach v. TrossbachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
- H. Max Ammerman v. City Stores CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Morris v. BallardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1926
- Mitchell v. DavidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
- Amberger & Wohlfarth, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1973
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Dyer v. BilaalDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- EastBanc, Inc. v. Georgetown Park Associates II, L.P.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- T Street Development, LLC v. Dereje and DerejeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2009
- Anchorage-Hynning & Co., a District of Columbia Limited Partnership v. Thomas G. MoringielloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Duffy v. DuffyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.