Legal Opinion
Illingworth v. Bushong
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided September 5, 1984No. TC 80-108-L, CA A20104, SC 29315PublishedCited by 91 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLent, J.
The narrow issue is whether the trial court erred in deciding that a forfeiture clause in an earnest money agreement was not a valid liquidated damages provision. We hold that there was no error in that respect. The broader question addressed in this opinion is how the validity of such clauses is to be tested.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
Defendants owned a 373 acre ranch, which they listed for sale in July, 1978. Plaintiff viewed the property in August and on September 8 entered into an earnest money agreement to purchase the ranch for $490,000. That writing provided for an earnest money deposit of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hendrix v. McKeeOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Falk v. AmsberryOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Medak v. HekimianOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Schlecht v. BlissOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Wright v. Schutt Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by91 opinions
- Miller v. Safeco Title Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Highgate Associates, Ltd. v. MerryfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
- Dennis I. Spencer Contractor, Inc. v. City of AuroraSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- TAL Financial Corp. v. CSC Consulting, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Mattvidi Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Nationsbank of Virginia, N.A.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.