From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brois v. DeLuca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 1989
154 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

concluding "This Contract is not binding until executed by Seller and delivered to Purchaser" is a condition precedent

Summary of this case from CBRE, Inc. v. Pace Gallery of N.Y., Inc.

Opinion

October 10, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, desiring to purchase real property from the defendant sellers, mailed to the defendants' attorney copies of a contract executed by him for the sale of the subject parcel. Paragraph nine of the rider to the contract provided that: "This Contract is not binding until executed by Seller and delivered to Purchaser." No executed copy of the contract by the defendants was ever returned to the plaintiff. The transaction was never consummated, and the plaintiff commenced this action.

We reject the plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing his complaint because the defendants had allegedly "waived" or modified the delivery requirement set forth in paragraph nine of the rider to the contract. While executed oral modifications of an existing written agreement are enforceable (see, Rose v Spa Realty Assocs., 42 N.Y.2d 338, 343-344), the plaintiff made no showing that there was in fact an existing agreement between him and the defendants. In the circumstances at bar, where there was no delivery of the contract which by its own terms became binding only upon delivery, no agreement between the parties could exist (see, Schwartz v Greenberg, 304 N.Y. 250, 254; Bohlen Indus. v Flint Oil Gas, 106 A.D.2d 909, 910). In view of the fact that the delivery requirement was a condition precedent to the formation of a contract it could not be waived by the defendants (see, Gram v Mutual Life Ins. Co., 300 N.Y. 375, 388-389). "It is a fundamental principle of contract law that a valid acceptance must comply with the terms of the offer" (Roer v Cross County Med. Center Corp., 83 A.D.2d 861).

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brois v. DeLuca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 1989
154 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

concluding "This Contract is not binding until executed by Seller and delivered to Purchaser" is a condition precedent

Summary of this case from CBRE, Inc. v. Pace Gallery of N.Y., Inc.
Case details for

Brois v. DeLuca

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE BROIS, Appellant, v. MARY F. DeLUCA et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 10, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
546 N.Y.S.2d 3

Citing Cases

Titte v. Butler

The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.The formation of a…

Titte v. Butler

We reverse the order insofar as appealed from. The formation of a contract for the sale of real property can…