Emmett E. Doherty and Mary Ellen Doherty, Husband and Wife v. Louis F. Coniglio

Ninth Circuit

Emmett E. Doherty and Mary Ellen Doherty, Husband and Wife v. Louis F. Coniglio

445 F.2d 316

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 10, 1971·No. 25256·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

We agree with the district court that the escrow instructions signed by the parties constituted a binding obligation ab initio to sell and to buy.

It is our view that until March 4, 1968, the buyers could have terminated the contract by a refusal to approve the “restrictions,” using the reasons they ultimately used. But they did it too late when they disapproved on March 18, 1968.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

We agree with the district court that the escrow instructions signed by the parties constituted a binding obligation ab initio to sell and to buy.

It is our view that until March 4, 1968, the buyers could have terminated the contract by a refusal to approve the “restrictions,” using the reasons they ultimately used. But they did it too late when they disapproved on March 18, 1968.

Emmett E. Doherty and Mary Ellen Doherty, Husband and Wife v. Louis F. Coniglio, 445 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

445 F.2d 316 (Emmett E. Doherty and Mary Ellen Doherty, Husband and Wife v. Louis F. Coniglio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.