This action was launched on 23 May 2014. The complaint raises a single plea for specific performance or damages for breach of the [c]ontract. The sellers responded to the complaint on or about July 1, 2014 and filed a counterclaim for damages for the illegal filing of a notice of pendens. You can seek the help of lawyers in India to draft a trial for the specific performance of a contract. In the event of a breach of contract, the non-infringing party usually brings an action for financial damages. There is some performance of the contract. In some cases, that party would prefer that the court compel it to comply with the terms of the agreement. In this situation, the non-infringing party may apply to the court to award the “specific performance” of the contract. Although many litigants prefer a particular benefit to money, the requirements for obtaining a particular benefit are strict, as courts generally prefer to award financial damages for a violation. The defendant had not demonstrated that it had duly terminated the contract in accordance with the mortgage emergency clause of the contract. This clause created certain rights that the parties retained in the event that the plaintiff was unable to obtain a particular mortgage commitment by a certain date.
Although the contract clearly provided the parties with certain rights in the event that the plaintiff did not guarantee the mortgage obligation – including the right of either party to terminate the contract – all of these rights, according to the plain language of the contract, were subject to their written notification “within five working days”. Although it is common ground that the plaintiff did not obtain the mortgage undertaking on the date indicated, the defendant has not provided any evidence that either party exercised any of the rights triggered by this breach or communicated it in writing within five working days. In its third plea, the plaintiff alleges that, although the defendants essentially fulfilled their obligations under the contract and were willing, willing and able to fulfill all their remaining obligations under the contract, they refused to fulfill their obligations under the contract, including cooperation in obtaining zoning permits and obtaining all necessary permits from the Attorney General and the Supreme Court of the State of New York. as a result of which the contract is breached and the applicant loses the possibility of arranging the premises. The plaintiff seeks a judgment ordering the specific performance of the contract and an injunction ordering the defendants to fulfill their obligations under the contract, including cooperation to obtain planning approval and amend the permit and conclude the sale of the premises. The respondent responded and raised certain counterclaims. The defendant then sought a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff`s action and a default judgment against the plaintiff on his counterclaims. The Supreme Court granted the defendant`s request for a summary judgment dismissing the appeal and concluded that the plaintiff was in default of contract, but implicitly dismissed the defendant`s claim for a default judgment against the plaintiff on the counterclaims. On the 27th. In May 2015, the buyer`s lawyer emailed back a signed contract proposal that had been significantly modified. The amendments to the long-term agreement included a reduction in the amount payable upon signing from 10% to 5% of the purchase price, as well as a $50,000 increase in the amount of the loan that the buyer would receive from the seller in the absence of title.
The buyer`s lawyer also changed the designated buying party by striking out “Joel Jacob or LLC to be trained” and writing it in “929 Flushing LLC”. In addition, “Schedule C” of the proposed contract, which describes the payment of the “purchase price”, has been amended. The mark-up amended the down payment provision to allow for $191,000, or only 5% of the purchase price, instead of the down payment of $382,000 or 10% indicated in the file. Änderungen am “Rider to Contract of Sale of 929 Flushing Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11206” wurden ebenfalls vorgenommen. . . .