Issue: Whether a Party Is Entitled to Summary Judgment On a Breach of Contract Claim.
| Area of Law: | Business Organizations & Contracts, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Breach of contract claim; Summary judgment |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 219 P.2d 64; 480 F.2d 1112; 877 P.2d 223; 667 P.2d 1124 |
| Cited Statutes: | Restatement of Contracts § 312 |
| Date: | 07/01/2001 |
A breach of contract occurs when a party to a valid contract fails to perform in accordance with the contract, resulting in damages to the other party who performed. City of Algona v. City of Pacific, 667 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983) (citing Restatement of Contracts § 312, at 462 (1932)). Determining whether revised language in a report constitutes a sufficient encumbrance to render a title unclear is an issue of law. Fraidin v. State, 583 A.2d 1065, 1074 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991). “Clear title” is marketable title. Barber v. Peringer, 877 P.2d 223, 226, (Wash. Ct. App. 1994); Fraidin, 583 A.2d at 1074 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 228 (5th ed. 1979)). Marketable title is “free of reasonable doubt” and is title that a “reasonably informed and intelligent purchaser, exercising ordinary business prudence, would be willing to accept.” Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc., 786 P.2d 285, 296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). See also Ocean Air Tradeways, Inc. v. Arkay Realty Corp., 480 F.2d 1112, 1117 n.3 (9th Cir. 1973) (holding that marketable title “means a title which a reasonable purchaser, well informed as to the facts and their legal bearings, willing and anxious to perform his contract, would, in the exercise of that prudence which business men ordinarily bring to bear on such transactions, be willing and ought to accept.”). It should be free of encumbrances. George v. Colvin, 219 P.2d 64, 68 (Cal. Ct. […]