You are here: / / Pre-Closing Inspection Disallowed Because There Was No Mention of a Pre-Closing...
,

Pre-Closing Inspection Disallowed Because There Was No Mention of a Pre-Closing Inspection in the Purchase Contract

The Fourth Department determined a purchase contract which contained a merger clause prohibiting oral modifications and which did not have a provision allowing a pre-closing inspection did not provide the buyer with the right to inspect the property.  Under the rules for the interpretation of an unambiguous contract, “ ‘courts should be extremely reluctant to interpret an agreement as impliedly stating something which the parties have neglected to specifically include’ . ..”.  Thirty One Development, LLC v Jeffery Cohen, et al, 161 CA 11-02577, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

You might also like
Statements Constituted Opinion, Not Facts/Defamation Complaint Against Syracuse Basketball Coach Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action
PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE, ILLEGAL SENTENCE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY EITHER PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).
DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.
PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER WAS SPRAYED WITH DIESEL FUEL AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE TANK OF THE BUS SHE WAS DRIVING; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GAS PUMP NOZZLE AND THE GAS STATION DEMONSTRATED THE NOZZLE AND THE GAS PUMP WERE WORKING PROPERLY; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT DESIGN FLAW IN THE FUEL SYSTEM OF THE BUS; THE NOZZLE MANUFACTURER’S AND THE GAS STATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
Legal Malpractice Action Accrues When Committed, Not When Client Learns of It
DEFENDANTS’ OWN SUBMISSIONS DEMONSTRATED (1) PLAINTIFF OWNED THE PROPERTY LEFT IN THE HOUSE PURCHASED BY DEFENDANTS, (2) PLAINTIFF HAD REMOVED SOME OF THE PROPERTY, AND (3) PLAINTIFF ASKED FOR MORE TIME TO REMOVE MORE PROPERTY; THOSE FACTS NEGATED DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF HAD ABANDONDED THE PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Buyer Not Entitled to “Loss of Bargain” Damages for Breach of Purchase ... Performance and Design Specification Contracts Defined