Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing

If you order your cheap essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing paper at affordable prices with cheap essay writing service!

Gaglia v. Kirchner


Facts- In ‘Gaglia v. Kirchner’, Charles A. Gaglia, Jr. is the Plaintiff-Appellant and Robert P. Kirchner and Rosemary Kirchner were the Defendants-Respondents. This case is an appeal case decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, A-1165-7T1. The case started being argued November 4,18 and decided on January 14, 1. Plaintiff contracted with defendant to buy their house. Defendants argue that the contract had been void according to its attorney review section before the sale had been carried out. The plaintiff alleges that defendant had committed “both common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act” (17 N. J. Super. ). The court of equity granted defendants’ order for “summary judgment” letting go of the plaintiff’s complaint. In late spring of 17 plaintiff began to look for a house available in the area of Wayne, NJ. He asked realtor Francine Elmo, employee of Caldwell Banker Realtors to help him with his search. Mr. Elmo knew the defendants were offering their home for sale and she thought that it might be what the plaintiff is looking for. Defendants’ asking price was $750,000. Plaintiff wanted to purchase the house for $700,000, but the offer was refused. On May 1, 17 plaintiff asked Ms. Elmo to tell defendant that he was about to sign a contract to buy a different house and asked if defendant could accept the $700,000 offer. Plaintiff reached an agreement with the seller of the other house but continued to negotiate in terms of a contract. On June 5th defendant was ready to accept his $700,000 offer. Plaintiff requested that defendant would sign a contract that promised expressly they would honor the offer and see it through closing. The contract was signed on June 7, 17.

Having signed the contract, plaintiff canceled his negotiations to buy the other house. The attorney review section read, “Buyer or Seller may choose to have an attorney study this contract. If an attorney is consulted, the attorney must complete his or her review of the contract within a three () day period. This contract will be legally binding at the end of this three () day period unless an attorney for Buyer or Seller reviews and disapproves of this Contract.” Defendant’s attorney disapproved the contract in its [then] present form. On Monday June 16, 17 Defendants’ attorney sent a letter to Plaintiff’s attorney stating, “My clients do not with to pursue this matter anymore with your clients. The contracts shall be considered void, and this letter shall act as authorization to have the broker return any deposits that may have been made.” Later the same day defendant decided they could probably get a better offer and opened their house to interested house-buyers over the weekend. That weekend the defendant accepted the best offer they could get. This suit was filed just days later, on June , 17.

Cheap University Papers on Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing

Issues- 1) Whether the defendant committed common law fraud and violated the Consumer Fraud Act?

) Whether plaintiff reasonably made a detriment on anything the defendant said or did after they received the June 10th letter?

Holdings- 1) No ) No

Reasoning- 1) Defendants did not commit common law fraud or violate the Consumer Fraud Act. Defendants were free to show and sell their house to another party after June 10 because their contract with Plaintiff had been terminated either by “a valid exercise or the attorney review provision or by their acceptance of his anticipatory breach.”

) There is no evidence that Plaintiff reasonably relied to his detriment on anything the defendant said or did after they received the June 10 letter. After defendant’s attorney’s receipt of Plaintiff’s attorney’s disapproval letter, “they did not have a binding contract and would not have one unless and until the prospective buyer and sellers all agreed in writing identical terms.” Showing their house to possible buyers after June 10 was therefore “not inconsistent with the assurances the Kirchners [defendants] had given Mr. Gaglia [Plaintiff] and Ms. Elmo to honor their contract.” This conflict of interest could have been avoided if the language of both attorneys was precatory. In Kutzin v. Pirnie [14 N.J. 500] “Neither [attorney] conditioned the viability of the contract on the acceptance of his proposals.” In that case, the letters “did not terminate the contract either by repudiation or by the effective exercise of its attorney review provision.”

Please note that this sample paper on Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom research papers on Gaglia v. Kirchner:Briefing will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from cheap essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

No comments:

Post a Comment