Mortgage Brokers Associates, Inc. v. Dinsmore
324 N.E.2d 904, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 744
Opinion
It appears that the writing which the plaintiff seeks to enforce is not an option but rather an unperformed and unenforceable agreement to enter into an option agreement. See Blair v. Cifrino, 355 Mass. 706, 709-710 (1969); Lucey v. Hero Intl. Corp. 361 Mass. 569, 573-575 (1972). But even if we were to assume that it was an option and that consideration was given for it, the plaintiff failed to exercise its rights (if any) “within the period of this agreement,” as required by the writing.
Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mortgage Brokers Associates, Inc. v. Dinsmore, 324 N.E.2d 904, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 744 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).
324 N.E.2d 904 (Mortgage Brokers Associates, Inc. v. Dinsmore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Blair v. Cifrino
247 N.E.2d 373 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)
Lucey v. Hero International Corp.
281 N.E.2d 266 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1972)