Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hudson v. Wakefield

Texas Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 1983No. C-1485Published

1DissentMcGEE, Justice

Because I agree with the holding of the court of appeals in this case and the holding of the court in Slam Properties v. Pickett, 495 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.), I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the purchasers’ payment of five thousand dollars to the title company was a condition precedent to the formation of a binding contract.

Even if the provisions of the earnest money contract are construed as a covenant, the purchasers would not be entitled to specific performance as a matter of law. Assuming a contract had been formed, the failure of the purchasers’ bank…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. S & H Supply Co. v. HamiltonTexas Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Slam Properties v. PickettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API