Beard v. S/E Joint Venture
Maryland Court of Appeals
581 A.2d 1275 (1990)
- Written by Rocco Sainato, JD
Facts
DeLawrence and Lillian M. Beard (plaintiffs) contracted with S/E Joint Venture (S/E) (defendant) to build a home and subsequently transfer title to the property to Beard upon the home’s completion. A provision in the contract stated that the contract was subject to the sale of Beard’s and her mother’s homes within ninety (90) days of its execution. S/E subsequently cancelled the contract, citing a provision that allowed them to cancel if in its discretion, performance of the contract’s terms would be impossible within 365 days. Beard subsequently filed a breach of contract claim against S/E, which included damages for the loss of bargain. The trial court determined that S/E knew two months into the project that the house would not be constructed in time and thus acted in bad faith. The trial court also found that S/E waited one year to inform Beard, knowing that Beard was to sell her and her mother’s homes in reliance on the contract in question. However, the trial court did not award loss of bargain damages, citing the Flureau exception preventing loss of bargain damages where breach is the result of inability to provide good title through no fault of the seller. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s loss of bargain ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rodowsky, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.