Stonecipher v. Pillatsch
Illinois Appellate Court
332 N.E.2d 151 (1975)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Richard and Audrey Stonecipher (plaintiffs) entered a contract to buy a house from Arnold and Elleen Pillatsch (defendants), and the Stoneciphers gave the Pillatsches a $1,000 deposit. The contract provided that the Stoneciphers would take possession of the house on July 1. In early June, however, the Pillatsches contacted the Stoneciphers about pushing back the possession date. The Stoneciphers orally agreed to push the date back to July 15. Soon afterward, the Stoneciphers became aware that the Pillatsches actually wanted to move out on August 1. The Stoneciphers then told the Pillatsches that the Stoneciphers would be holding them to the original July 1 possession date. The Pillatsches said that they could not move out until August 1. The Stoneciphers replied by saying the contract was off and demanding their $1,000 deposit back. The Pillatsches refused. On June 16, the Pillatsches sent the Stoneciphers a letter saying they would be out by July 1. The Stoneciphers did not respond until filing suit against the Pillatsches on August 31. The trial court ruled for the Stoneciphers and ordered the Pillatsches to give back the $1,000 deposit. The Pillatsches appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seidenfeld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.