From our private database of 30,500+ case briefs...
Foster v. Cross
Alaska Supreme Court
650 P.2d 406 (1982)
Michael Stephens wanted to purchase a large piece of land to develop into a single-family residential project and contacted Warren Sanders, a real estate broker, for help. Sanders found an 80-acre tract owned by Robert and Arlene Cross (defendants). Sanders presented two offers to the Crosses, which were both rejected. In September 1978, Sanders presented another offer, with Robert Milby also listed as a copurchaser. Sanders represented that Milby was a substantial builder with considerable development experience and that Milby was an important and well-known builder. Sanders also represented that Stephens had resolved his previous financial issues and that Stephens was an important subdivider. The Crosses entered into a purchase agreement with Milby and Stephens. The purchase agreement was on a standard form and included a 90-day period between the execution of the agreement and the closing. The purchase agreement also contained a standard clause stating that Sanders was the Crosses’ agent. Because a large portion of the purchase price was to be paid in installments, the Crosses requested financial statements for Stephens and Milby several times but did not receive them. During the period before closing, Stephens’s financial condition worsened, and Stephens assigned his interest in the contract to Sharon Dale. Milby assigned his interest to James Foster (plaintiff). The financial statements were delivered to the Crosses just before the scheduled closing. However, the Crosses refused to close. Sanders’s representations regarding the development experience of Milby and Stephens were false, along with the representation regarding Stephens’s finances. Dale assigned her interest to Foster as well. Foster then sued the Crosses, seeking specific performance of the land-sale agreement. After trial, the trial court ruled that the contract was voidable because of Sanders’s false representations. Foster appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Matthews, 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 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead 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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,500 briefs, keyed to 984 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.