Unilateral Promise to Sell Breach and Damages
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA lower court had correctly ruled that a party to a contract, who had promised to sell a building to another party but subsequently sold it to a third party after the first party had made modifications to the building as agreed, was liable for damages because the original promise to sell was a unilateral promise to sell, not a bilateral sale agreement, and the seller's subsequent sale to a third party constituted a breach of that promise, which entitled the initial promisee to compensation for the loss suffered.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAUnilateral Promise to Sell Breach and Damages: A lower court had correctly ruled that a party to a contract, who had promised to sell a building to another party but subsequently sold it to a third party after the first party had made modifications to the building as agreed, was liable for damages because the original promise to sell was a unilateral promise to sell, not a bilateral sale agreement, and the seller's subsequent sale to a third party constituted a breach of that promise, which entitled the initial promisee to compensation for the loss suffered.