Gerety v. Poitras
Vermont Supreme Court
224 A.2d 919 (1966)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Sharon Gerety (plaintiff) bought a home from J. Leo Poitras (defendant). The purchase agreement provided that if a major water problem occurred in the cellar, Poitras would do what was necessary to make the cellar usable for general use. A major water problem did occur, and Gerety engaged a contractor to determine what repairs were necessary to make the cellar usable for general use. The contractor wrote a letter detailing the necessary repairs. Gerety sent a copy of the letter to Poitras, requesting that Poitras make the repairs. Poitras refused to do so, and Gerety filed a petition seeking specific performance. Gerety alleged that she was without an adequate remedy at law. Poitras filed a motion to dismiss Gerety’s claim for specific performance, arguing that money damages for breach of contract were an adequate remedy at law and, therefore, specific performance was inappropriate. The trial court denied Poitras’s motion to dismiss, and Poitras appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keyser, 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.
