![]() |
![]() |
Free Books / Real Estate / American Law Of Real Estate Agency / | ![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
|
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Sec. 969. Instruction Proper That If Contract Was Altered Before Purchaser Executed It, There Was No Meeting Of Minds |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
This section is from the book "American Law Of Real Estate Agency", by William Slee Walker. Also available from Amazon: American law of real estate agency.
Where a broker, in an action for services in procuring defendant a purchaser for land, claimed that both parties had signed duplicate contracts of sale, and defendant claimed that after signing the papers the purchaser took them and signed only after making material alterations therein, and that he thereupon refused to re-execute the contracts as altered, and that they were never delivered, it was error to refuse an instruction that if, after defendant executed the contracts, they were altered before the purchaser executed them, and were never subsequently re-executed, there was no meeting of minds. Bruce v. Hurlbut, 66 N. Y. S. 1127, 54 App. Div. 616; Ballon v. Bergvendsen, 9 N. D. 285, 83 N. W. 10. See also Sec. 996. Compare Sec. 485.
 
Continue to:
agent, real estate agency, brokerage, commissions, compensation, contracts, duties, exchanges, exclusive contracts, forms, interpretations, judicial constructions, leases, liabilities of principal, listing, loans, options, contracts, pleadings, practice, law, rights, sales
![]() |
|
|