Legal Opinion
Quenza v. Dailey
Norfolk County Circuit Court
Decided July 14, 2003No. Case No. (Chancery) CH03-166Published
1Opinion of the Court
By Judge Charles E. Poston
Today, the Court sustains the demurrer to the Bill of Complaint for specific performance with leave for the Plaintiff to file an amended Bill of Complaint.
In the case at bar, Quenza asserts that the “Warehouse Agreement” concerning the real and personal property is “enforceable as a contract” and requests a decree of specific performance. Bill of Complaint at ¶ 6-7. Although Quenza has based her lawsuit properly on contract theory, she has not sued the proper party.
Fisher v. Bauer, 246 Va. 490, 492 (1993), explains that in contract actions:
There can be no decree for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Soble v. HermanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
- Lucy v. ZehmerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1954
- First National Exchange Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1937
- Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
- Spinks v. RiceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1948
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.