The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' anticipatory repudiation of an agreement to purchase a waterfront property.
The plaintiffs resold the property for $325,000 less than the original contract price and claimed the difference plus additional commission costs as damages.
The court determined the proper assessment date for damages was the intended closing date of the original agreement.
However, the court found that the resale price alone was insufficient to prove market value in these circumstances and that there was a genuine issue regarding mitigation.
The court directed the parties to file further expert evidence on market value and mitigation to allow the damages to be determined under the court's enhanced fact-finding powers on summary judgment.
