Legal Opinion

Safari, Inc. v. Verdoorn

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1989No. 16332PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMiller, Justice

(on reassignment).

In this appeal, we affirm the trial court and hold that the forfeiture provision contained within a contract for sale is void as a matter of law and that the trial court appropriately awarded damages and restitution.

FACTS

In 1972, Dimitrios and Karen Theodoso-poulos (Sellers) purchased a bar/lounge and incorporated it as Safari, Inc. (Safari). In March of 1985, a fire in an adjoining business, caused extensive smoke and water damage to the bar. Sellers substantially remodeled it and reopened it in June, 1985. Following the renovation, Sellers decided to sell the bar,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Heikkila v. CarverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Prentice v. ClassenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Walter Motor Truck Co. v. State Ex Rel. Department of TransportationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1999
  2. BankWest, N.A. v. GrosecloseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Chamberlain Livestock Auction, Inc. v. PennerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Wandler v. LewisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Kelly v. MarxMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998

7 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