McMaster v. Strickland
South Carolina Court of Appeals
409 S.E.2d 440, 305 S.C. 527 (1991)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Charles Strickland (defendant) contracted to buy a piece of land in North Myrtle Beach from Ida McMaster, Florence Fishburne, and Elizabeth Martin (collectively, the sellers) (plaintiffs). Strickland learned about the property from a realtor friend who backed out of buying the property because it was wetlands. During the contract negotiations, the parties knew that Strickland intended to use the property for homesites, that the property was low and wet, and that permits from government agencies were required to make changes to the wet nature of the property. Strickland believed he could get the permits and signed the contract without making the sale contingent on his ability to do so. Strickland was unable to obtain a permit to change the property because of the land’s wetlands status and contacted the sellers to notify them he was not going to buy the land. The sellers sued for breach of contract, and the trial court found that Strickland was entitled to reject the contract because the sellers could not deliver marketable title. The sellers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shaw, 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.
