Haney v. Hatfield

Citations

• 241 Pa. 413
• 88 A. 680
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 799

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Contracts for the sale of land — Breach—Damages— Construction of contracts — Performance by .vendee — Estoppel.</p> <p>1. In an action of assumpsit for breach of a contract to sell land where no fraud is present, the damages are to be measured, not by the loss of the vendee’s bargain, but only by the consideration paid, and by the expenses and trouble incurred by the vendee.</p> <p>2. One who places his refusal to perform a contract upon a certain specific ground is estopped, after litigation has begun, to set up other grounds for his refusal.</p> <p>3. Where in such an action, the contract in question provided that in the settlement, defendant should purchase from plaintiff thirty-nine mortgages “on houses to be built” on lots of a given frontage into which the land was to be divided, the plans and specifications of the houses to be approved by defendant before final settlement, and the defense was that the plans and specifications had never been so approved, and that the mortgages offered at the time of settlement did not comply with the contract in that they did not cover the entire tract, but only thirty-nine subdivisions thereof, leaving two corner lots unencumbered, and that plaintiff had not performed in other matters not alleged at the time of settlement, the court was right in allowing the jury to determine whether the defendant had approved the plans and specifications, as the evidence on this point was conflicting, and in holding that the mortgages complied with the contract, as the lots which they covered were of the required frontage, and the contract did not stipulate that no part of the land should pass unencumbered, and that defendant was estopped to set up matter in excuse for nonperformance which he had not relied on before the action was brought.</p>