Lexplug logoLexplug

Bordelon v. Kopicki

Louisiana Court of Appeal
1988 WL 6733, 524 So. 2d 847 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To invalidate a contract based on unilateral error, the error must relate to the principal cause for making the contract, and the other party must have known or been presumed to know of this principal cause.


Facts:

  • John and Paula Bordelon listed their three-bedroom residence for sale.
  • Robert and Carole Kopicki were seeking a three-bedroom home that could be converted into a four-bedroom home.
  • Prior to making an offer, the Kopickis discussed and made arrangements with a contractor to build an addition onto the Bordelon's house.
  • On May 26, 1983, the Kopickis and the Bordelons entered into a contract for the Kopickis to purchase the property for $134,500.
  • Shortly before the closing date, the Kopickis discovered that the property was burdened by a 30-foot right-of-way in favor of the City of Lafayette.
  • Believing the right-of-way would prevent their planned addition, the Kopickis refused to consummate the sale.

Procedural Posture:

  • John and Paula Bordelon sued Robert and Carole Kopicki in a Louisiana trial court for breach of the purchase agreement.
  • A separate concursus proceeding was initiated to determine ownership of the $1,000 deposit.
  • The trial court consolidated the two actions.
  • The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Bordelons, awarding them $18,816.30 in damages.
  • The Kopickis, as defendants-appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party's unilateral error regarding a property's suitability for a specific, planned addition invalidate a real estate purchase agreement when that party's principal cause for the purchase was never communicated to the seller?


Opinions:

Majority - Yelverton, Judge

No. A party's unilateral error regarding a property's suitability for a specific purpose does not invalidate a purchase agreement when the other party was unaware of that purpose. Under Louisiana Civil Code Art. 1949, a contract can only be invalidated for error if two conditions are met: (1) the error relates to the principal cause for the contract, and (2) the other party knew or should have known of that principal cause. While the court assumed the Kopickis' principal cause was the ability to build an addition, this cause was never communicated to the Bordelons or their agent. The Bordelons knew of plans for 'some renovations' but were not aware of the specifics or that these plans were the fundamental reason for the purchase. The court concluded it cannot be presumed that a seller would know of such a specific, unstated intention, as the apparent reason for buying a house is simply to acquire a suitable place to live.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the two-part test for unilateral error in Louisiana contract law, reinforcing the importance of communication between contracting parties. It establishes that a party's subjective, uncommunicated motive, even if it is the 'principal cause' for entering the contract, is insufficient to void the agreement. This decision protects contractual certainty by placing the onus on the party with a specific, non-obvious purpose to disclose that purpose to the other party. Consequently, future litigants claiming error will have to prove not only that the error was central to their decision, but also that the other party was aware of its importance.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Bordelon v. Kopicki (1988) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Bordelon v. Kopicki