Harbor Park Market, Inc v. Gronda

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it would not judicially impose a limitation where the condition language was clear, unambiguous, and without limitation
• stating that “[i]n light of the clear and unambiguous language in the contract, we cannot consider what [the party’s] understanding was regarding the scope of the condition”
• finding that there was no active interference with attorney-approval condition in contact
• “The goal of contract interpretation is to first determine, and then enforce, the intent of the parties based on the plain language of the agreement.”
• \Since the parties failed to include an express limitation in the language of the condition precedent ... we will not judicially impose one ourselves.\
• “promisors[] cannot avoid liability on the contract for the failure of a condition precedent where they caused the failure of the condition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).