For Your Data Hilton V. Nelsen Illustration Brief

Hilton v. Nelsen representative brief summary
283 N.W.2d 877 (1979)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff existent estate investor entered into a written understanding drafted past times the investor's attorney amongst accused sellers to buy their farm. After the concluding appointment for the sale of the belongings nether the agreement, the investor filed an activity inward the Marshall County District Court (Minnesota) for specific functioning together with damages. The courtroom entered judgment for the investor. The sellers sought appellate review.

CASE FACTS

• Nelsen had a 720 patch farm together with negotiated a contract of sale amongst Hilton. 
• The contract stated a buy toll of $180,000, which would non last repaid for the kickoff 5 years of a ten-year mortgage. 
• Instead Nelsen would have an annual 7% involvement during that time. 
• Hilton would pay alone $2,000 a twelvemonth inward main for during the 6th through the 9th twelvemonth together with $119,800 was due at maturity. 
• Performance past times Hilton was conditioned on obtaining championship insurance amongst no policy exceptions. 
• The property, however, was dependent plain to easements for roads, telephone cables, also every bit the state’s mineral rights. 
• Hilton refused to unopen the bargain without a $16,000 reduction inward the buy price. 
• Hilton afterward agreed to unopen anyway exactly Nelsen thence decided that he was non going to sell. 
• Hilton sued for specific functioning of the contract. 
• The case courtroom held that Nelsen was inward breach of the contract; Ordered specific functioning together with damages for the fair rental value of the belongings for the fourth dimension inward which Nelsen stayed on the premises after the contract closing date. 
• Nelsen appealed.

DISCUSSION

• On appeal, the courtroom held that the investor did non abandon the understanding inward the representative at bar. 
• The courtroom accepted the case court's factual findings every bit supported past times the tape that the sellers repudiated the understanding past times alphabetic quality together with that they failed to unopen on the understanding every bit its terms required. 
• The courtroom held, however, that the understanding drafted past times the investor's attorney was such that at that spot were elements of unfairness, or at to the lowest degree overreaching, inward the contract itself. 
• The courtroom held that the contract lacked mutuality of remedy. 
• In the absence of such mutuality, the courtroom refused to exert its equitable powers together with left the parties to their remedy at law. 
• The courtroom held that the understanding gave the investor the correct to unilaterally give the sack the understanding for a diverseness of reasons, together with that if he chose to give the sack the contract he had the correct to a furnish of his earnest coin deposit. 
• In low-cal of the nature of the agreement, together with the totality of the circumstances, including the property's redemption after a foreclosure sale inward which the investor had purchased the mortgage, the courtroom held that damages at constabulary were an adequate remedy for the sellers' breach.

CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the factual findings of the case courtroom exactly reversed its judgment of the case courtroom granting specific functioning of the contract. The courtroom held that the investor was entitled to a legal remedy of damages rather than an equitable remedy inward low-cal of the nature of the agreement, together with remanded the representative for a case every bit to damages.

Suggested constabulary schoolhouse written report materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Share this post