Legal Opinion
Kelly v. Marx
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided May 21, 1998No. 96-P-0114PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJacobs, J.
The plaintiffs (buyers) essentially concede they repudiated their agreement to purchase real estate from the defendants (sellers). At issue is the buyers’ right to recover a deposit made by them in conjunction with that purchase and sale agreement.3 Acting on cross motions for summary judg*826ment, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the sellers. We reverse and order the entry of a judgment requiring the return to the buyers of their $17,750 deposit.
The law’s abhorrence of contractual penalties engenders no greater controversy than when it affects the enforcement of liquidated damages…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Lake Ridge Academy v. CarneyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Knutton v. CofieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Illingworth v. BushongOregon Supreme Court · 1984
- A-Z Servicenter, Inc. v. SegallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of MiddletownSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1999
- Kelly v. MarxMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- NPS, LLC v. MinihaneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Carrothers Construction Co. v. City of South HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
- Hutton Contracting Co. v. City of CoffeyvilleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.