Judgment Purchase Agreement

The deadline was to be „no later than March 31, 1986.“ When the buyer did not close the sale, the sellers filed this complaint. Following a trial, the court ordered on February 11, 1987 that buyer Brett actually complete the contract within 30 days or that he meet $15,000 in damages. This decision was amended on February 20, 1987 to allow the defendant to execute the contract on certain alternative dates. The parties, who are experienced real estate agents, have entered into a contract to sell many lands on Ono Island, near Gulf Shores, Alabama. The purchase price of $110,000 should be met by the buyer`s acceptance of an existing mortgage, a second mortgage and debt for a portion of the balance and a partial cash payment. The sale agreement also provided for US$5,000 of serious money to be held in trust by brett Real Estate Company. Another provision states that sellers often choose to terminate the sales contract in the event of a failed transaction, because the seller cannot sell to a replacement buyer during the first sales contract. If the seller needs enough serious money in the sales contract to compensate for the failure of the transaction, legal termination may be the best recourse for a buyer`s breach of the sales contract. By legal termination, a seller may terminate the sales contract within fifteen or thirty days of notification of the legal opinion and the seller is generally allowed to keep the money earned as liquidated damage. If the serious money is not enough, the seller can request a voluntary termination and ask the buyer for additional compensation for the seller`s agreement to terminate the sales contract. In certain circumstances, the seller may seek a judicial termination to terminate the obligation to sell the property to the defaulting buyer, but require that the sales contract remain fully in effect so that the seller can claim damages from the buyer. The defendant`s argument on this first issue assumes that the terms of the treaty provisions themselves limit the recovery of the applicants to the $5,000 money it provides.

However, unlike the foregoing, neither the terms of the contract of sale nor the facts themselves reveal an error in the Tribunal`s appeal. Indeed, even if the contract provides that „in Escrow is owned by Brett Real Estate.“ Earn money to be 5000 dollars“ in fact, no serious money was paid. The provision for the payment of serious money was for the sake of the sellers, Wall and Whiting. They could therefore waive that provision.