Epdee Corp. v. Richmond

13 Citing cases

  1. Finn v. McNeil

    23 Mass. App. Ct. 367 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 37 times
    Stating that a court should adopt construction of agreement which makes it a valid and enforceable undertaking

    Shayeb v. Holland, 321 Mass. 429, 432 (1947). See Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 675 (1947). In the instant case, the parties fixed the purchase price and added an adjustment clause which prescribed the method by which the adjusted price was to be calculated.

  2. A.B.C. Auto Parts, Inc. v. Moran

    359 Mass. 327 (Mass. 1971)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the essential terms for a written contract for the sale of real estate include the "nature of the transaction, the parties, the locus of the property, and the purchase price"

    Des Brisay v. Foss, 264 Mass. 102, 109. Michelson v. Sherman, 310 Mass. 774, 775. Cousbelis v. Alexander, 315 Mass. 729, 730. Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 675. Pino v. Yenof, 353 Mass. 775. The endorsement clearly indicates the nature of the transaction, the parties, the locus of the property, and the purchase price. No essential element of a contract for the sale of land was omitted.

  3. Freedman v. Walsh

    331 Mass. 401 (Mass. 1954)   Cited 23 times

    Ed.) c. 259, ยง 1, Fourth. Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 675, and cases cited. Rix v. Dooley, 322 Mass. 303, 307.

  4. Normandin v. Eastland

    68 Mass. App. Ct. 377 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 16 times

    Hopedale also attacks paragraph four of the judgment on the basis that the remedy set out therein constitutes an impermissible revision of the land swap agreements. See e.g., Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 675-676 (1947); Hook Brown Co. v. Farnsworth Press, Inc., 348 Mass. 306, 312-313 (1965); Van Dusen Aircraft Supplies of New England, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Authy., 361 Mass. 131, 142-143 (1972); Sancta Maria Hosp. v. Cambridge, 369 Mass. 586, 595-596 (1976); King v. Allen, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 868, 870 (1977), all cases in which the relief ordered by the court was disallowed on appeal as it effectively altered the exchange between the parties. The remedy fashioned by the judge in the case before us violates no express terms of the land swap agreements.

  5. Mobil Oil Guam, Inc. v. Tendido

    2004 Guam 7 (Guam 2004)   Cited 12 times
    In Mobil Oil, this court upheld a contractual provision providing that attorney's fees were recoverable in the case of one party having to "enforce" the contract, using the meaning of the term as found in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.).

    Cf. Doryon, 142 Cal.Rptr. at 380; Lang, 21 P.3d at 1122. In Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 75 N.E.2d 238 (Mass. 1947), the court noted:The effectiveness of a contract for the sale and purchase of real [property] is not impaired by the absence of the elaborate stipulations often found in such contracts providing for the kind of deed to be given, the division of charges against the property, the disposition of mortgages and other encumbrances, and similar matters.

  6. Oberg v. Burke

    188 N.E.2d 566 (Mass. 1963)   Cited 11 times

    Dennett v. Norwood Housing Assn. Inc. 241 Mass. 516, 521. Parkhurst v. Maynard, 285 Mass. 59, 63. It constitutes no unwarranted extension of this result to impose on sellers who impair their own title a similar obligation. Relief to the purchaser so ordered does not produce injustice or oppression to the seller ( Morad v. Silva, 331 Mass. 94, 99) and is not an unfair extension of the provisions of the contract (see Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673). In Barrett v. Carney, 337 Mass.

  7. Rix v. Dooley

    322 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1948)   Cited 8 times

    Shayeb v. Holland, 321 Mass. 429. It is apparent that it correctly states the oral undertaking of the parties. Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673. It may be noted that the above described receipt states that the balance of the purchase price is payable in sixty days.

  8. King v. Allen

    5 Mass. App. Ct. 868 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    In King v. Allen, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 868 (1977), we reversed a judgment denying the plaintiff specific performance and ordered that a "new judgment... [for specific performance] be entered in accordance with the [plaintiff's] motion therefor."

    Sancta Maria Hosp. v. Cambridge, 369 Mass. 586, 595 (1976). Compare Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 676 (1947); Van Dusen Aircraft Supplies of New England, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Authy., 361 Mass. 131, 142-143 (1972). The judgment is reversed, and a new judgment is to be entered in accordance with the motion therefor filed by the plaintiff.

  9. Hook Brown Co. v. Farnsworth Press, Inc.

    203 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1965)   Cited 6 times

    The letter memorandum did not contain many provisions which might have been appropriate for inclusion in a formal sealed lease. See analogy of Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 675 (agreement to sell land). The testimony, however, showed only two matters which were dealt with in conversations but not specifically dealt with in the letter, viz. (a) the space to be occupied by Hook, a matter covered in detail by the floor plan submitted to Berman prior to the transmission of the latter's letter and impliedly incorporated by reference in the letter (see Corbin, Contracts, ยงยง 512, 515), and (b) the times of payment of the rent, which were shown by Brown's somewhat ambiguous statement that the rent was to be "the same terms that we were . . . paying . . . Wharf.

  10. Pieczarka v. Pieczarka

    101 N.E.2d 351 (Mass. 1951)   Cited 5 times

    It follows that the decree must be modified by striking out the word "warranty" where it appears in the decree and as so modified the decree is affirmed. Epdee Corp. v. Richmond, 321 Mass. 673, 676. So ordered.