Booras v. Uyeda

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that subordinate details need not be spelled out for an agreement to be specifically enforceable
• holding that specific performance concerning a payment term requires that the contract provide for those terms
• failure to file cross-appeal precludes appellate court from considering argument as basis to modify judgment
• court of equity cannot, under guise of filling gaps, make contract which it thinks the parties would have agreed to
• appellate court may not render judgment more favorable to a respondent and less favorable to an appellant than the judgment entered below, even on de novo review
• “A court of equity cannot, under the guise of ‘filling gaps’ make the contract which it thinks the parties would have agreed to. The court can only enforce an existing agreement which is so definite in its terms that the court can frame a decree to compel performance.” (Citation omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).