Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Shimrak v. Goodsir

Ohio Court of Appeals
2014 WL 4244313 (2014)


Facts

Peter and Patricia Shimrak (plaintiffs) entered into a purchase agreement to buy a house from Susan Goodsir (defendant). The purchase agreement conditioned the sale on the Shimraks’ ability to obtain financing within 30 days of Goodsir accepting the offer. If the Shimraks failed to obtain timely financing, the Shimraks had two option. The Shimraks could either request an extension or remove the financing contingency from the agreement. If Goodsir were to refuse a request for an extension, the purchase agreement would be voided. Following Goodsir’s acceptance, the Shimraks paid Goodsir $2,000 in earnest money and applied to their bank for financing. The Shimraks’ bank refused extend financing until after the Shimraks sold their current home. The Shimraks contacted Goodsir and proposed an amendment to the purchase agreement that would make the transaction contingent upon sale of the Shimraks’ current home. Goodsir rejected the proposal. Unable to sell their home to get financing, the Shimraks withdrew from the purchase agreement. Goodsir sold the house several months later at a significantly lower price. The Shimraks sued Goodsir for the return of the $2,000 in earnest money. Goodsir filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Shimraks had breached the terms of the purchase agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of the Shimraks, finding that the two options set forth by the agreement were discretionary, and that the Shimraks were entitled to forgo both options. Additionally, the trial court reasoned that the Shimraks’ request for an amendment making the sale contingent on the sale of their own home was a request for an extension to obtain financing. The court found that Goodsir voided the contract by rejecting the amendment. Goodsir appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.