Kramer v. Mobley
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
216 S.W.2d 930 (1949)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Mobley (plaintiff) entered into an agreement to purchase real property from Kramer (defendant). After executing the agreement, Mobley learned of an outstanding lien against the property. Kramer asserted that he had informed the real estate broker in advance that the lien was in dispute and that he expected the purchaser to accept title subject to the lien with a provision that Kramer would indemnify the purchaser against any loss resulting from the lien. Kramer offered to tender a check to Mobley in excess of the amount of the lien and to institute legal proceedings to resolve the dispute over the validity of the lien. Mobley indicated that he found Kramer’s offer acceptable, but changed his mind before the agreement was consummated. Kramer later offered a warranty deed to Mobley and again offered a check in excess of the lien amount and a promise to take legal action to clear title. Mobley refused and Kramer returned Mobley’s down payment. Mobley filed suit alleging breach of contract and seeking damages for the difference between the market value of the property and the contract price, along with expenses including title examination fees. The trial court concluded that Kramer had breached the purchase contract and awarded damages to Mobley. Kramer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rees, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.