Bander v. Grossman

611 N.Y.S.2d 985 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In the summer of 1987, P looked for a sports car to purchase for interim personal use and to sell if the price rose. D had in inventory a 1965 DB5 Astin-Martin convertible with a left-hand drive. P learned that there were only 20 of these models in existence. P thought the car was undervalued and anticipated a price increase. A contract of sale was reached with a purchase price of $40,000 with P depositing $5,000. The troubles then started. D could not obtain the title documents from the wholesaler from whom he had agreed to purchase the vehicle. The facts indicated that the title had been misplaced. D did not transmit this explanation to P but instead told a story about problems of getting title from a different individual. In August of 1987, D attempted to return the deposit but then indicated that he was still trying to resolve the problems. In December 1987, P’s lawyer wrote D a letter indicating that the contract had been breached and P would sue. P finally sued 4 months after D sold the car in 1989. A jury trial was held, and the jury fixed P’s knowledge of the breach at the time his attorney wrote the letter and did not accept P’s argument that the contract remained in effect thereafter. The jury found that the market price had increased $20,000 by December, which D claims, is unsupported by the evidence. P got a judgment for $20,000, which was the difference in the purchase and market value at the time of breach. P moved for judgment on its alternative request for monetary specific performance, which was for a judgment that was ten times the one the jury returned. D moved to set aside the breach of contract jury verdict in favor of P. Both motions were considered.