Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Gironda
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
463 A.2d 722 (1983)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
On January 23, 1979, Frank Gironda, Jr. and Patricia Gironda (defendants) signed a contract to purchase a mobile home from Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc. (Schiavi) (plaintiff) for $23,028.69. The defendants paid a deposit of $1,000.00 but later breached the purchase contract. An agent of Schiavi contacted Frank Gironda, Jr.’s father, Frank Gironda, Sr., to determine whether his son still intended to purchase the mobile home. Gironda, Sr. indicated that, if his son could not be found, he was willing to pay the purchase price to avoid forfeiture of his son’s $1,000.00 deposit. Although Gironda, Sr. did not have the money at the time, he owned property that he was willing to mortgage in order to make the payment. Schiavi’s agent stated that this would not be necessary. On November 7, 1979, Schiavi sold the mobile home to a third party for $22,000.00. Schiavi then sued the defendants for $4,800.00 in lost profits and interest expenses. The Oxford County Superior Court awarded Schiavi $759.45 in damages, notwithstanding the fact that Schiavi could have obtained the full purchase price from Gironda Sr. The Superior Court held that Schiavi had not failed to mitigate its damages because Gironda, Sr.’s offer to pay was conditional and vague. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nichols, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.