Singh v. Pollino CA3
Pardeep Singh entered into an agreement with Dorothy Pollino to buy Pollino’s house and property. Among other things, the agreement provided that if the transaction did not close by September 18, 2015, the agreement would expire. A fire subsequently destroyed Pollino's house and Singh did not pay the previously agreed-upon purchase price by the expiration date.
Singh sued for specific performance, but the trial court entered judgment for Pollino, ruling that the agreement expired under its own terms.
Singh now contends the fire establishes that Pollino breached her contractual obligation to maintain the interior of the house. She claims she showed willingness to perform by sensibly offering to subtract the insurance proceeds from the purchase price, or by offering to build a new house with the insurance proceeds. She argues the trial court should have ordered specific performance of the agreement. Disagreeing with Singh's arguments, we will affirm the judgment.
Comments on Singh v. Pollino CA3