District of Columbia Court of Appeals
359 A.2d 17 (1976)
Ida Caspar (defendant) contracted to sell her home to the Fergusons (plaintiffs) on November 18, 1972. In the contract was a provision guaranteeing that the residence would not be in violation of any municipal codes on the closing date. Furthermore, it was agreed that on the closing date, the price of the residence would be paid for in cash. Prior to contracting, Ms. Caspar received a notice from the District of Columbia, stating that she was in violation of several municipal housing codes. The Fergusons became aware of this and obtained an estimate to determine how much it would cost to make the necessary repairs to the residence. This estimate was obtained without Ms. Caspar’s knowledge. The Fergusons made no mention of the violations to Ms. Caspar. On the closing date, the parties met to complete the sale. Ms. Caspar delivered title of the residence to an escrow agent, to be held until the Fergusons completed their requirements under the contract. The Fergusons then delivered a check for the purchase price to the escrow agent. As the parties were about to part ways, the Fergusons delivered instructions to the escrow agent, stating that out of the money they transferred, a portion should be held in the amount of the estimate they received in order to cover repairs. The instructions further stated that this money was not to be paid out until Ms. Caspar made the necessary repairs. The escrow agent then refused to deliver title to the Fergusons. The Fergusons brought suit against Ms. Caspar, demanding specific performance of the sales contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Ms. Caspar, stating that the Fergusons did not complete their requirement of tendering the purchase price in cash. The Fergusons appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Reilly, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.