![]() |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
| |||
| |||
| Is it? Was the option exercised?
__________________ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. --W. T. Pooh (aka A. A. Milne) |
|
#17
| |||
| |||
| Yes, the option was exercised. Md defines an option contract as: "a continuing offer to sell during the duration thereof which on being exercised by the optionee becomes a binding and enforceable contract." See Straley v. Osborne, 262 Md. 514, 278 A.2d 64. It appears that the sellers acceptance was "unequivocal and in accordance with the terms of the option". It also appears that the sellers acted in bad faith by failing to meet with OP and deliberately avoided and/or evaded him to frustrate OP's right to exercise option. The SOF defense would fail here, as the contract was an option contract and not a contract for the sale of land. I think OP can bring an action against sellers for specific performance. |
|
#18
| |||
| |||
| I have to disagree with you here on both counts. We have no idea if the option was exercised. It would be very fact sensitive and would require reading the option contract. I suspect the OP could have a case of a breach of good faith and fair dealing regarding the option with the builder (and has been at least part of my position all along) but, we are a long way from asserting it. In addition, an option contract on land would almost assuredly fall under the statute of frauds absent some odd quirk in the state's law. SOF is on contracts which of and concerns land, not just the sale of land. Wouldn't you say an option contract for the purchase of land, "of and concerns" land? I am uncertain what you are trying to assert with the case cite. No one has said an option contract doesn't obligate the parties. Finally, specific performance would not be a good remedy and I think the court unlikely to grant it as the current owner was a bonafide purchaser for value.
__________________ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. --W. T. Pooh (aka A. A. Milne) |
|
#19
| |||
| |||
| I agree, but isn't that true of every opinion posted on this forum, that unless one has "all" the facts, we only have a general idea. I cited that case because the OP had stated "I see in the document states 'seller can cancel this reservation at any time by refunding deposit'." And, did not think that condition would hold up. I was able to confirm it reading the case. Also, no doubt the SOF would be raised. But my opinion is that it would fail because the OP had fully performed on the option contract. |
|
#20
| |||
| |||
| You wrote the option was exercised. Please state the facts indicating that. The seller refund issue makes me believe it may not actually be an option and may indicate the OP gets the money back as it was only a deposit. Again, please indicate how the OP fully performed on the option contract.
__________________ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. --W. T. Pooh (aka A. A. Milne) |
![]() |