Goldstein v. Bettencourt

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Goldstein v. Bettencourt

343 N.E.2d 432, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 788, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 567

Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided March 4, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Assuming (as the judge apparently did) that the plaintiffs’ letter of December 31, 1969, constituted the acceptance contemplated by the option agreement, the judge was clearly correct in finding and ruling that there had been no compliance with or waiver or modification of the requirement of written notice to the optionor as to the time and place for conveyance. No substantial question of law is presented by the appeal. See Rule 1:28 of the Appeals Court, 3 Mass. [789]*789App. Ct. 807 (1975); Sabatanelli v. Travelers Ins. Co. 369 Mass. 674, 676, 678-679 (1976).

The case was submitted on briefs. Guy R. Peznola, Jr., for the plaintiffs. John M. Crean for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Assuming (as the judge apparently did) that the plaintiffs’ letter of December 31, 1969, constituted the acceptance contemplated by the option agreement, the judge was clearly correct in finding and ruling that there had been no compliance with or waiver or modification of the requirement of written notice to the optionor as to the time and place for conveyance. No substantial question of law is presented by the appeal. See Rule 1:28 of the Appeals Court, 3 Mass. [789]*789App. Ct. 807 (1975); Sabatanelli v. Travelers Ins. Co. 369 Mass. 674, 676, 678-679 (1976).

The case was submitted on briefs. Guy R. Peznola, Jr., for the plaintiffs. John M. Crean for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Goldstein v. Bettencourt, 343 N.E.2d 432, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 788, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 567 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

343 N.E.2d 432 (Goldstein v. Bettencourt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related