P and D negotiated a Purchase Agreement for $376,900 with a delayed closing date of October 2, 2007, to allow Ds to take advantage of an employer willing to pay for relocation rent. P and D also signed an agreement for rental of the home by D from October 2, 2006, through September 30, 2007. The Rental Agreement provided that Ds would have the option to purchase the home for $376,900. The Rental Agreement also contained a 'put' option that reserved for Pl the right to require D to close on the purchase of the home for $376,900 at the end of the term of the lease. In July 2007, D's position was eliminated, and he became unemployed. On August 6, 2007, P notified Ds of its intent to exercise its option to force the sale of the property to them. P and D negotiated a modification to extend the term of the Rental Agreement for a three-month period ending December 31, 2007. Ds offered to go forward with their purchase of the house at the original purchase price if P agreed to sell on contract or with P's financing. P rejected the offer, and Ds moved out in early January 2008. Hubbell listed the house for sale at the contract price of $376,900. About six months later, P accepted an offer to buy the house for $350,000. The offer was contingent on the sale of the prospective buyer's current residence, a contingency which did not occur. The sale was never completed, and the house remained on the market at the time of trial at a reduced listing price. P sued seeking compensatory damages, consequential damages, and attorney fees. D asserted defenses of frustration of purpose and unconscionability. The district court denied the defenses of frustration of purpose or unconscionability and awarded P damages in the amount of $26,900, the difference between the $350,000 value and the contract price. The court also awarded P consequential damages for internal legal fees and all repairs made to restore the house to marketable condition and $12,960 in attorney fees. P appeals, arguing the district court erred in calculating general damages. Ds cross-appeal, arguing the district court erred in failing to grant relief on their defense of frustration of purpose.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.