Legal Opinion

Mandle v. Owens

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1976No. 976S280PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Dissenting Opinion on Denial of Transfer

Hunter, J.

I dissent to the denial of transfer in this case. It is my belief that the Court of Appeals erred in its determination that the “earnest money” provision in the sales contract between the Mandles and Owenses was a penalty clause rather than an agreement upon liquidated damages.

*253The term “earnest money” comes to us from the civil law and is defined: “ [a] sum of money which one of the contracting parties delivered to the other at the time of the contract, and presumed to be a forfeit, in the absence of evidence that the parties intended to bind…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mandle v. OwensIndiana Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Noto v. BlascoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
  3. Tudor v. BeathIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Consultants, Incorporated v. BarnesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
  2. Seach v. Richards, Dieterle & Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Rogers v. LockardIndiana Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. In Re DotyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · 1991
  5. Courtney v. Allied Filter Engineering, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API