(Download) "Robert C. Richards Et Al. v. Helga Levy" by Supreme Court of New York ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Robert C. Richards Et Al. v. Helga Levy
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 21, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
In early February, 1967, respondents offered in writing to purchase a parcel of real property purportedly owned by appellant, it being provided that the offer was good until February 18, 1967. On February 24, 1967 appellant advanced certain minor modifications to the proposal, which were found satisfactory to the respondents, and on March 7, 1967 appellant accepted the purchase offer as modified and a $100 payment on account. On June 24, 1968 respondents attorney notified appellants then lawyer that there was an outstanding interest in the premises that would have to be cleared, it appearing that this was an undivided one-forty-eighth share formerly held by Fred G. Clark, Jr., and conveyed by him to one Kolakowski on June 1, 1967, with respondents attorney acting as Notary Public on the deed in a county some distance from his office. Said attorney informed appellants then lawyer on July 24, 1968 that he had been in touch with Kolakowski who was willing to sell his share for $1,000. Appellant felt this demand was outrageous, and, after negotiations, refused to complete the transaction, having previously returned the $100 down payment and having paid respondents $100 in liquidated damages as specified in the purchase offer instrument, neither of which were accepted by respondents. Although appellant did not accept respondents original offer within the time specified for its duration, her subsequent varying offer containing minor modifications was a counteroffer (22 West Main St. v. Boguszewski, 34 A.D.2d 358, 360-361; 1 Williston, Contracts [3d ed.], §Â§ 92, 93; 9 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 30) accepted by respondents within a reasonable time so as to form a valid contract (Oliver v. Wells, 229 App. Div. 356, 359, affd. 254 N. Y. 451), and since the original offer expressing the consideration was signed by appellant and in view of the written exhibits, the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 5-703 of the General Obligations Law were satisfied. The liquidated damages clause in the contract did not bar the equitable remedy of specific performance (Rubinstein v. Rubinstein, 23 N.Y.2d 293, 298). The rejection, on the ground that the defense had not been raised in the answer, of evidence as to whether respondents conduct was of such character as to bar their action, as bearing on their coming into court with clean hands, was error. This maxim or doctrine is not primarily a matter of defense (Bell & Howell Co. v. Bliss, 262 F. 131); it need not be pleaded as a defense (Palumbo v. Palumbo, 55 Misc. 2d 264; Pszczola v. Pszczola, 8 Misc. 2d 924), and, in fact, need not be [40 A.D.2d 1055 Page 1056]
 "Robert C. Richards Et Al. v. Helga Levy" by Supreme Court of New York ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}