Rosenkoff v. Mariani

D.C. Circuit

Rosenkoff v. Mariani

207 F.2d 449, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 1953

Docket11643

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 F.2d 449 (Rosenkoff v. Mariani) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenkoff v. Mariani, 207 F.2d 449, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 111 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Rosenkoff v. Finkelstein, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 263, 195 F.2d 203, appellant Rosenkoff sued persons who, he said, had given him an oral option to buy their land and had afterwards sold the land to a man he introduced to them. We denied recovery. We said: “Since appellant had no contract with [the sellers] or with the purchaser there has been no interference with contract rights.” 90 U.S.App.D.C. at page 264, 195 F.2d at page 204.

Appellant now asserts a claim against the purchaser, alleging nearly the same facts as before. He says he had “an oral option to purchase * * * ” jn jts context, we take this assertion to mean only that the owners promised they would sell him the land if he decided to buy it. He does not suggest that he gave consideration for their promise. In other words he alleges no contract, either oral or written. Though he says the sellers and the buyer joined in a “conspiracy” to deprive him of profit he states no claim on which relief can be granted. It is elementary, and we held on the previous appeal, that an owner incurs no liability by failing to perform a mere promise to sell land to a particular person. It is also elementary that a third person who wants the land incurs no liability by buying it in disregard of such a promise. Since there was no contract, the question whether liability is incurred by inducing breach of a contract that fails to comply with the Statute of Frauds does not arise.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In Rosenkoff v. Finkelstein, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 263, 195 F.2d 203, appellant Rosenkoff sued persons who, he said, had given him an oral option to buy their land and had afterwards sold the land to a man he introduced to them. We denied recovery. We said: “Since appellant had no contract with [the sellers] or with the purchaser there has been no interference with contract rights.” 90 U.S.App.D.C. at page 264, 195 F.2d at page 204.

Appellant now asserts a claim against the purchaser, alleging nearly the same facts as before. He says he had “an oral option to purchase * * * ” jn jts context, we take this assertion to mean only that the owners promised they would sell him the land if he decided to buy it. He does not suggest that he gave consideration for their promise. In other words he alleges no contract, either oral or written. Though he says the sellers and the buyer joined in a “conspiracy” to deprive him of profit he states no claim on which relief can be granted. It is elementary, and we held on the previous appeal, that an owner incurs no liability by failing to perform a mere promise to sell land to a particular person. It is also elementary that a third person who wants the land incurs no liability by buying it in disregard of such a promise. Since there was no contract, the question whether liability is incurred by inducing breach of a contract that fails to comply with the Statute of Frauds does not arise.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F.2d 449, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenkoff-v-mariani-cadc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack