Lexplug logoLexplug

Brady v. Green

Supreme Court of Alabama
159 Ala. 482, 48 So. 807, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 673 (1909)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a contract with concurrent conditions, such as a real estate sale, a plaintiff suing for breach need not allege actual tender of performance (e.g., payment or a prepared deed) if they allege they were ready, willing, and able to perform and that the defendant refused to perform their reciprocal obligation.


Facts:

  • The plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for the sale of property.
  • The plaintiff agreed to buy, and the defendant agreed to sell, property in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, known as the 'old jail and the opera house' and its contents.
  • The agreed-upon purchase price was $4,000.
  • The plaintiff was ready, able, willing, and offered to comply with their contractual obligation to pay.
  • The defendant refused to convey the property to the plaintiff as agreed.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in a trial court for breach of contract.
  • The defendant filed demurrers (a motion to dismiss) against the plaintiff's amended complaint.
  • The defendant's demurrers argued that the complaint was legally insufficient because it failed to allege that the plaintiff had tendered the purchase price and a prepared deed.
  • The trial court overruled the defendant's demurrers, finding the complaint sufficient.
  • The defendant (appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling to the Supreme Court of Alabama, with the plaintiff as the appellee.

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 complaint for breach of a real estate contract sufficiently state a cause of action if it alleges the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform, but does not allege that the plaintiff actually tendered the purchase money and a prepared deed, when it also alleges that the defendant refused to convey the property?


Opinions:

Majority - McClellan, J.

No. A complaint for breach of a real estate contract with concurrent conditions is sufficient if it avers the plaintiff's readiness, willingness, and ability to perform and the defendant's refusal, without needing to allege an actual tender of the purchase price or a prepared conveyance. The court reasoned that the contract contemplated a contemporaneous exchange of payment and property, creating concurrent conditions. Requiring the buyer to actually tender money before receiving the deed would force them to part with their consideration without receiving the equivalent in return, which is contrary to the principle of concurrent performance. The buyer's allegation that they were 'ready, able, willing, and offered to comply' is sufficient to show they were not in default. Furthermore, the defendant's express refusal to convey the property makes the act of preparing and tendering a deed a futile gesture, which the law does not require.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the pleading standard for breach of contract cases involving concurrent conditions, particularly in real estate transactions. It establishes that a plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform, coupled with the defendant's repudiation of the contract, is sufficient to state a claim without requiring the plaintiff to undertake a futile or risky tender of performance. This lowers the procedural barrier for a non-breaching party to seek legal recourse, preventing a breaching party from using the plaintiff's failure to perform a useless act as a defense. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that the law does not require a party to do a vain or useless thing.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Brady v. Green (1909) 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 Brady v. Green