Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesmotionsummary judgment
contractbreach of contractdefendantdamagesmotionsummary judgmentburden of proofcorporation

Related Cases

Kohl v. Arp, 236 Iowa 31, 17 N.W.2d 824, 169 A.L.R. 1067
View Case »
Island Federal Credit Union v. Smith, 60 A.D.3d 730, 875 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 01776
View Case »
Light v. W2001 Metropolitan Hotel Realty LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2175778
View Case »
Shanghai Inv. Co., Inc. v. Alteka Co., Ltd., 92 Hawai’i 482, 993 P.2d 516
View Case »
Stocki v. Nunn, 351 P.3d 911, 2015 WY 75
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ner Tamid Congregation of North Town v. Krivoruchko, 638 F.Supp.2d 913

Facts

In 2007, Igor Krivoruchko entered into a contract to purchase property from Ner Tamid Congregation for $3,825,000, with a closing date initially set for October 31, 2007. After requesting an extension, Krivoruchko ultimately failed to close the deal, citing an inability to secure financing due to an economic downturn. Ner Tamid subsequently sued for breach of contract after Krivoruchko did not fulfill his obligations by the extended closing date of January 15, 2008.

In 2007, real estate developer, Igor Krivoruchko, contracted with Ner Tamid Congregation of North Town, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation ( Amended Answer, ¶ 2), to purchase property Ner Tamid owned on Rosemont Avenue in Chicago.

Issue

Did Krivoruchko establish valid affirmative defenses of impossibility and impracticability, and did he demonstrate that Ner Tamid failed to mitigate damages?

Mr. Krivoruchko advances two affirmative defenses: 1) Ner Tamid failed to mitigate its damages because it did not accept the other offer, and it did not negotiate alternate (lower) terms under which Mr. Krivoruchko could go forward with the purchase—what those terms should have been is not specified, and there is no claim that Mr. Krivoruchko was in a position to have accepted a lower offer; 2 and 2) Mr. Krivoruchko's performance under the agreement should be excused under the doctrine of impossibility due to what he contends was the “unforeseen” and “unforeseeable” collapse in the real estate market in the summer of 2007, which prevented him from getting a loan.

Rule

Under Illinois law, a party claiming impossibility or impracticability must show that unforeseen circumstances rendered performance impossible. Additionally, failure to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense that requires the defendant to prove the plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to minimize damages.

Under Illinois law, mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden of proof.

Analysis

The court found that Krivoruchko's claims of impossibility were unsupported by sufficient evidence, as he failed to demonstrate that the economic downturn was unforeseeable at the time of contracting. Furthermore, the court ruled that Ner Tamid was not required to mitigate damages by accepting a lower offer or financing the deal, as Krivoruchko's failure to close was not due to any fault of Ner Tamid.

The court found that Krivoruchko's claims of impossibility were unsupported by sufficient evidence, as he failed to demonstrate that the economic downturn was unforeseeable at the time of contracting.

Conclusion

The court granted Ner Tamid's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Krivoruchko was liable for breach of contract and that the only remaining issue was the determination of damages.

The court granted Ner Tamid's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Krivoruchko was liable for breach of contract and that the only remaining issue was the determination of damages.

Who won?

Ner Tamid Congregation prevailed in the case because the court found that Krivoruchko failed to establish his affirmative defenses and was liable for breach of contract.

You must be