Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Cutter Development Corp. v. Peluso

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 11, 1989No. 13641Published

1ConcurrenceShea, J.

I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the agreement between the parties, despite its title, “Option Agreement,” and the inclusion of provisions expressly discharging the plaintiff of liability in the event of its failure to purchase the property, imposed “a binding obligation upon the plaintiff to purchase the property.” Paragraph 16 of the written contract is as follows: “In the event Purchaser, through no fault of Seller, fails to perform any of the obligations hereinbefore set forth, Purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the Premises described herein, and all deposits…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dodek v. Cf 16 Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. Broady v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1978
  3. Dixon v. HaftCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  4. Green Manor Corp. v. TomaresCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API