Lindoar v. Ringle
Israel Supreme Court
CA 2454/98, 65(1) PD 225 (2001)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
Eliahu Lindoar (plaintiff) and Jacob Ringle (defendant) entered into a contract, under which Ringle agreed to purchase several million shares of a company for approximately $740,000. Under the terms of the contract, the price was to be paid in three installments, with the first installment made the day the contract was signed and the remaining two payments on later dates. Ringle paid the first installment but failed to make the next two payments. The contract specifically provided that in the event Ringle failed to pay the second or third installment, Ringle had to return the shares to Lindoar and forfeit the amount already paid in the first installment. The contract also stated that Lindoar was free to file a complaint for any relief and damages for the injury sustained by Ringle’s failure to pay. Lindoar sued Ringle for specific performance of the contract, seeking to have Ringle fulfill his obligations and pay the second and third installments. The district court dismissed Lindoar’s claim for specific performance, and Lindoar appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Or, J.)
Dissent (Rivlin, 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.