Youngberg v. Kach

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Youngberg v. Kach

316 A.2d 756, 164 Conn. 68, 1972 Conn. LEXIS 650

DecidedNovember 14, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 316 A.2d 756 (Youngberg v. Kach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Youngberg v. Kach, 316 A.2d 756, 164 Conn. 68, 1972 Conn. LEXIS 650 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action for the specific performance of the plaintiff’s option to purchase certain property located in the town of Newtown. The named defendant, one of the six owners of the property, refused the plaintiff’s demand to convey his interest in the property pursuant to the terms of the option on the ground that he never received the notice of the plaintiff’s intention to exercise the option, a notice required by the agreement.

The controlling issue was one of fact. From the evidence presented at the trial the court found that the defendant had received the notice specified in the option and concluded that the plaintiff had complied with the terms of the option. Accordingly, judgment for specific performance was rendered.

The record amply supports the finding and conclusion of the court.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action for the specific performance of the plaintiff’s option to purchase certain property located in the town of Newtown. The named defendant, one of the six owners of the property, refused the plaintiff’s demand to convey his interest in the property pursuant to the terms of the option on the ground that he never received the notice of the plaintiff’s intention to exercise the option, a notice required by the agreement.

The controlling issue was one of fact. From the evidence presented at the trial the court found that the defendant had received the notice specified in the option and concluded that the plaintiff had complied with the terms of the option. Accordingly, judgment for specific performance was rendered.

The record amply supports the finding and conclusion of the court.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 A.2d 756, 164 Conn. 68, 1972 Conn. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngberg-v-kach-conn-1972.