Rudnick v. Grossman
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
In this action to recover the deposit paid by the plaintiffs when they submitted their allegedly unaccepted offer to purchase the defendants’ building, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment under G. L. c. 231, § 59 (as amended through St. 1965, c. 491, § 1), was improperly allowed, as it appears from the answers of one of the defendants to certain interrogatories which accompanied the motion, read in the light most favorable to the defendants (McMahon v. M & D Builders, Inc. 360 Mass. 54, 56 [1971], and case cited), that the plaintiffs’ offer may have been orally accepted and thereby…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McMahon v. M & D BUILDERS, INC.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Kesler v. PritchardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Wasserman v. RoachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
3Cited by1 opinion
- Junkins v. Slender Woman, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979