Legal Opinion

Rudnick v. Grossman

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 10, 1975PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. McMahon v. M & D BUILDERS, INC.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  2. Kesler v. PritchardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
  3. Wasserman v. RoachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Junkins v. Slender Woman, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API