Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ducuy v. Falgoust

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 30, 1955No. 41481Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHamiter, Justice

I am unable to agree with the interpretation placed by the majority on the reciprocal clauses of the contract relating to a failure by either party to comply with his agreement. Thereunder, each of the parties, on the failure of the other, may resort to specific performance; or, the vendor has the right to declare the deposit forfeited, wheréas the vendee may demand the return of double the deposit.

In keeping with the decision in Johnson v. Johnson, 213 La. 1092, 36 So.2d 396, which I am convinced is sound and correct, I am of the opinion that the mentioned reciprocal clauses contemplate only…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1948
  2. Samuelson v. BoskSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1951
  3. Nelson v. HoldenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API