Legal Opinion

Warner v. Rasmussen

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1985No. 19079PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HALL, Chief Justice:

The Warners (buyers), defaulting buyers under a uniform real estate contract, appeal a judgment dismissing their action to recover a portion of their payments on the contract which the Rasmussens (sellers) retained under a forfeiture clause. Buyers challenge both the legal and factual bases of the trial court’s determination of actual damages caused by buyers’ breach. They contend the amount they paid on the contract was far greater than sellers’ actual damages and thus the forfeiture clause is unconscionable and voidable as a penalty. We affirm.

The parties entered the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Perkins v. SpencerUtah Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Jacobson v. SwanUtah Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Kinkella v. BaughUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Johnson v. CarmanUtah Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Soffe v. RiddUtah Supreme Court · 1983

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Reid v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Commercial Real Estate Investment, L.C. v. Comcast of Utah II, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Breuer-Harrison, Inc. v. CombeCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1990
  5. Allen v. KingdonUtah Supreme Court · 1986

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API