Roscoe-Gill v. Newman
Arizona Court of Appeals
937 P.2d 673 (1996)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Carolyn Roscoe-Gill (plaintiff) signed a contract to sell her ranch to Charles Newman (defendant). The sale price was $380,000 and Newman provided $5,000 in escrow as earnest money. The contract included a liquidated-damages clause, which specified that Roscoe-Gill would keep the $5,000 earnest money as the total of her damages in the event of a breach by Newman. Over the next few months, the parties agreed to postpone the closing date a number of times because Newman was unable to close due to financial considerations. Roscoe-Gill agreed to each extension in writing and received some changes to the contract in consideration of the extensions, including an increased sale price to $404,000. After Newman was still unable to close, Roscoe-Gill finally declared a breach. Roscoe-Gill by that point was under increased financial pressure to sell and eventually sold the ranch to another purchaser for $260,000. Roscoe-Gill sued Newman for breach of contract and sought damages of $140,000. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment regarding whether Roscoe-Gill was limited to receiving only the contractually specified liquidated-damages amount. The court granted summary judgment to Newman, finding that Roscoe-Gill was entitled only to the $5,000 earnest money as specified in the contract. Roscoe-Gill appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pelander, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.