For Your Data Lucenti V. Cayuga Apartments, Inc. Representative Brief

Lucenti v. Cayuga Apartments, Inc. case brief summary
399 N.E.2d 918 (1979)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant seller challenged the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (New York), which granted appellee buyer's electrical load for specific functioning of a contract for the sale of existent property. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 edifice discipline to the sale was destroyed past times burn earlier the closing, too the seller argued that the Uniform Vendor too Purchaser Risk Act,N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1311, mandated rescission, non specific performance, of the contract.

CASE FACTS
Before the contract for sale could close, burn destroyed nigh one-half of the discipline existent property; the appellate courtroom held that appellant seller must sell the holding to appellee buyer amongst an adjustment or abatement of the price. The seller argued that the Uniform Vendor too Purchaser Risk Act (Act), N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1311, mandated rescission too non specific functioning of the contract. The buyer objected to the adjusted cost equally modified past times the appellate courtroom from that ready past times the trial court.

DISCUSSION

The courtroom held that the Act permits a buyer to rescind a contract inwards the consequence a fabric devastation of the holding occurs earlier closing or grants either political party the ability to enforce a contract, amongst abatement of the price, inwards the consequence of an immaterial impairment to the property.
However, the courtroom held that the Act was still equally to a seller who sought to enforce a contract nevertheless that a fabric business office of the realty had been destroyed.
The courtroom held that because the Act was still on the issue, the common-law abatement dominion would cash inwards one's chips on to apply too affirmed the judgment of specific performance.
The courtroom held that the buyer was non aggrieved past times the modification.

CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the judgment of the appellate courtroom against appellant seller because the Uniform Vendor too Purchaser Risk Act did non accept from appellee buyer their optional common-law remedy of specific functioning of a existent estate contract amongst an abatement of the purchase cost inwards the consequence of a fabric devastation of the property. The buyer's counterclaim was dismissed because the buyer was non injured past times the appellate court's decision.

Suggested police line schoolhouse report materials