The plaintiff sued a developer for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale after the developer refused to complete the sale of a subdivision lot, alleging late delivery of the deposit.
The court held that a binding agreement existed and that the developer could not rely on the time-of-essence clause because the parties subsequently extended the closing date through correspondence between counsel.
The developer also counterclaimed seeking removal of a house constructed by the plaintiff on a different lot, alleging breaches of restrictive covenants requiring approval of building plans.
The court found the covenants enforceable in real property law but declined injunctive relief because the developer had acquiesced and delayed while construction proceeded.
The plaintiff was awarded consequential damages for the aborted transaction but not loss-of-bargain damages.
