Specific Performance by Virtue of Substantial Performance -- Stainbrook v. Low
In this case, the purchaser or real estate sought to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale real estate. Specifically, the plaintiff-buyer had entered into a valid binding contract with another party, a seller who died before the completion of the contractual obligations of the parties. Representatives of the seller's estate refused to accept payment and sought to rescind the contract. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to specific performance because he had substantially performed his obligations and that to the extent his performance was incomplete, it was only because the defendant had refused his offer to fully perform.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance because he offered to fully perform his obligations as per the contract. This concept is important because otherwise, any party who wished to escape the obligations of a valid contract could simply refuse to accept payment (or refuse to allow other types of performance, such as refusing to allow a painter access to property to complete painting work on time) and then rely on that non-performance to escape the validly created contractual obligations.
Fact vs. Opinion of Parties with Superior Knowledge -- Vokes v. Arthur Murray Inc.
In this case, the plaintiff had pre-paid for thousands of hours of dance lessons from the defendant and then realized that she had wasted her money based on insincere and purposeful flattery and misstatement of fact and belief. Specifically, the defendant convinced the plaintiff...
The court held that the defendant possessed superior knowledge and that where a party with superior knowledge chooses to express an opinion that is relevant to the decision of the other party with much less knowledge, those opinions are held to be factual. Whereas the defendant had no duty to disabuse the plaintiff of her announced intentions and could have remained silent even if the plaintiff's stated hopes were unrealistic, the defendant could not actively contribute to her decision-making by offering any additional flattery or opinion supporting her unrealistic decision.
This concept is important because otherwise, sellers and other with vastly superior knowledge could use their expertise and their status as experts to encourage ignorant parties to enter into contacts based on their explicit statements and then disclaim any responsibility by virtue of the distinction between "fact" and "opinion." While a seller is under no obligation to educate a buyer, once he undertakes to provide information or opinions upon which a buyer might typically rely, the seller is under an obligation to disclose all of his beliefs and opinions on the matter and may not claim that his "opinions" should not have been relied upon by the buyer.
