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 contractdefendanttrialmotionspecific performancemotion to dismiss
contractplaintiffdefendanttrialmotionwillspecific performancemotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Kaye v. Buehrle, 8 Ohio App.3d 381, 457 N.E.2d 373, 8 O.B.R. 495
View Case »
Wells v. Chattanooga Bakery, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 381
View Case »
Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F.Supp. 1183, 175 U.S.P.Q. 56
View Case »
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F.Supp.3d 439, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1524
View Case »
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Schiro v. W. E. Gould & Co., 18 Ill.2d 538, 165 N.E.2d 286

Facts

The case involves a contract executed on December 18, 1948, between Frank Schiro and W. E. Gould & Company for the purchase of real property at 8221 W. Irving Park Road, Chicago, Illinois. The contract stipulated payments totaling $18,050, with specific conditions regarding the construction of a building and the installation of a sewer and water system. After making payments, Schiro discovered that the construction did not comply with city code requirements, leading to a dispute over the specific performance of the contract.

According to the uncontroverted facts, on December 18, 1948, Anthony Coniglio and Joseph Coniglio, and plaintiff Frank Schiro executed certain ‘Articles of Agreement for Warranty Deed’ with defendants, W. E. Gould & Company and Joseph Goth.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for specific performance of the real estate contract under the circumstances involved.

The issue in this cause is whether the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for specific performance of the real estate contract under the circumstances involved herein.

Rule

Contracts for the purchase and sale of realty are presumed to have been executed in light of existing law, which is deemed a part of the contract as if expressly incorporated.

It is settled law that all contracts for the purchase and sale of realty are presumed to have been executed in the light of existing law, and with reference to the applicable legal principles.

Analysis

The court found that the contract included relevant provisions of the city code, which required that drainage and plumbing systems be separate and directly connected to the city water system. The defendants' failure to comply with these requirements constituted a breach of contract, justifying the purchaser's request for specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price.

Applying this established law to the instant case, it is evident that the contract to purchase the land and building to be constructed by defendants included, as an integral part, the relevant provisions of the city code in existence at the time the contract was executed.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the purchaser's complaint and remanded the case with directions to reinstate the complaint and allow the defendants to respond.

On the basis of this analysis, the superior court of Cook County erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the complaint.

Who won?

Frank Schiro prevailed in the case because the court found that the vendors breached the contract by failing to comply with city code requirements, which were integral to the contract.

The Supreme Court, Bristow, J., held that contract to sell and purchase land and building to be constructed thereon by vendors included, as an integral part, relevant provisions of city code in existence at time contract was executed.

You must be