Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that contractual language was not a promise because \[n]o words of promise [we]re employed\
• stating that contractual language was not a promise because “[n]o words of promise [we]re employed”
• stating that contractual language was not a promise because “[n]o words of promise [we]re employed”
• finding condition precedent where requirements were contained in section entitled “Conditions Precedent to Purchaser’s Obligation to Close,” which provided that plaintiffs obligation was “subject to” fulfillment of the requirements
• “[A] contracting party’s failure to fulfill a condition excuses performance by the other party whose performance is so conditioned.”
• defendant not required to perform where plaintiff did not obtain confirmation from Farmers Home Administration that certain mortgages were in place and that the proposed sale did not constitute a default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).