Bastian v. Cedar Hills Inv. and Land Co.
Utah Supreme Court
1DissentHowe, Justice
I dissent. I do not agree with the statements in the majority opinion that the earnest money agreements failed for want of consideration, and that the amendment agreement failed for the same reason. I also disagree with the statement that both parties have treated the amendment agreement as if it did not exist. To the contrary, the seller relies upon it very heavily since it contains the “waiver” provision which it thinks aids its position, and the buyer relies upon the amendment agreement as the basis of the seller’s promise to transfer water shares to the town of Cedar Hills. But even if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Huck v. HayesUtah Supreme Court · 1977