Peter E. Loucks

This appeal concerns a failed real estate transaction where both parties mistakenly believed the property was subject to a prescriptive easement.

The purchaser, Roalno Inc., refused to close without a price abatement or extinguishment of the supposed easement.

The vendors refused these terms.

Roalno sued for specific performance with an abatement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding Roalno breached the agreement by refusing to close.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, concluding that Roalno had anticipatorily breached the contract by demanding new terms based on a legally erroneous belief, and that the vendors had accepted this repudiation, thereby ending the contract.

The court also clarified that statutory rights under the Road Access Act do not constitute an easement or right-of-way under the agreement's warranties.

The plaintiff, Leroy Dirckx, sued the defendant, William Martin, for damages related to the sale of a convenience store and real property.

Dirckx alleged improper conversion of goods, depleted inventory, removed equipment, and disrepair after Martin took possession but failed to close the deal.

Martin counterclaimed for misrepresentation and aggravated damages, alleging Dirckx misrepresented title and business income.

The court found that Dirckx was entitled to damages for inventory, equipment, water charges, and property taxes, but dismissed his claim for rent.

Martin's counterclaim for misrepresentation and aggravated damages was dismissed, as he failed to establish liability or meet the threshold for psychological injury.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff at $28,877.31.