DiGiuseppe v. Lawler
Texas Supreme Court
269 S.W.3d 588 (2008)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In October 1998, Nick DiGiuseppe (defendant) contracted to purchase land from Richard Lawler (plaintiff). The purchase was conditioned upon the city’s approval of a rezoning application to support DiGiuseppe’s building plans. The contract provided that closing would occur 15 days after successfully rezoning, and that DiGiuseppe would deposit $100,000 upon contract signing, $100,00 upon submission of the rezoning application, and $400,000 upon the city’s approval of the rezoning “as applied for.” The city council approved the rezoning application on January 4, 2000. Taking the position that the rezoning had not been approved “as applied for,” DiGiuseppe did not make the third deposit. Lawler filed suit, contending that DiGiuseppe defaulted on the contract, and seeking a declaration that the contract was terminated and damages for breach of contract. DiGiuseppe counterclaimed for breach of contract and specific performance. A jury found in DiGiuseppe’s favor, awarding damages and specific performance. Lawler appealed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that DiGiuseppe had not proven that he was ready, willing, and able to complete the purchase that the time the transaction would have closed, as is required for a successful claim for specific performance. DiGiuseppe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waldrop, J.)
Dissent (Green, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
