Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias Parish
California Supreme Court
37 Cal.2d 16 (1951)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Freedman (plaintiff) entered into a purchase agreement to buy two lots owned by the defendants. Under the agreement, the total purchase price was $18,000, and Freedman paid $2,000 as a down payment into escrow. Before closing, Freedman objected to a utility easement on the property and refused to go forward with the sale. Freedman demanded the return of his security deposit. Later, Freedman stated that he would follow through with the purchase if the easement was removed. However, the easement was recorded and was not required to be removed under the contract. The defendants then cancelled the contract and entered into a new agreement with a different purchaser. The new agreement included a purchase price of $20,000. The next month, Freedman notified the defendants that Freedman wanted to close. The defendants refused, and Freedman sued, seeking specific performance or a return of the deposit. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. Freedman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
