Panco v. Rogers
New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
19 N.J. Super. 12 (1952)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
John Panco (plaintiff) owned the property in question for nearly 40 years. John was a carpenter and built the home located on the property. In 1951, John decided to sell the home and move to Florida. John advertised the property for sale for $12,500 and showed the property and home to several prospective buyers. None of those prospective buyers were willing to pay $12,500 for the property. Rogers (defendant) lived in the neighborhood and came by to tour the home. Mary Panco (plaintiff), John’s wife, conducted the tour. Rogers believed that Mary reported the asking price as $5,500, but Mary spoke with an accent. Mary believed she stated the price was $12,500. Rogers returned with his wife and looked at the property again with John, but the price was not discussed during this visit. Rogers indicated he wanted to buy the property, and Rogers and John met with an attorney to sign the appropriate paperwork. Price was not verbally discussed during that meeting. John and Mary signed the sales agreement and later in the day discovered that the price was listed as $5,500 rather than $12,500. The Pancos immediately contacted Rogers, but Rogers did not cancel the agreement. The Pancos then sued, seeking rescission of the contract, and Rogers countersued, seeking specific performance of the agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haneman, 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. 46,400 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.
