Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc.
1980 Conn. LEXIS 912, 181 Conn. 501, 435 A.2d 1022 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer who breaches a real estate contract may recover their down payment to the extent that it exceeds the seller's actual damages, thereby preventing unjust enrichment. The seller's damages are to be measured at the time of the breach, not at the time of trial or any subsequent date.
Facts:
- On July 11, 1973, Euel D. Vines and Etta Vines contracted to buy a condominium unit from Orchard Hills, Inc. for $78,800.
- The Vines paid a down payment of $7,880, which constituted 10% of the purchase price.
- The sales contract included a clause designating the down payment as liquidated damages to be retained by the seller in the event of the buyers' default.
- Subsequent to the contract, Euel D. Vines' employer transferred him to New Jersey.
- On January 4, 1974, the Vines notified Orchard Hills, Inc. that they would not proceed with the purchase, thereby breaching the contract.
- The Vines' breach was not willful, and there was no claim that Orchard Hills, Inc. failed to meet its contractual obligations.
Procedural Posture:
- Euel and Etta Vines sued Orchard Hills, Inc. in a Connecticut trial court to recover their $7,880 down payment.
- The defendant, Orchard Hills, Inc., filed a demurrer (a motion to dismiss), which the trial court overruled.
- Following a trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the Vines, ordering the return of the down payment plus interest.
- The defendant, Orchard Hills, Inc., appealed the trial court's judgment to the present court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a buyer who non-willfully breaches a real estate contract entitled to restitution of their down payment if they can prove the seller was unjustly enriched, despite a liquidated damages clause in the contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
Yes, a purchaser whose breach is not willful has a restitutionary claim to recover moneys paid that unjustly enrich the seller. The modern trend in contract law is to permit restitution for a breaching party in order to avoid forfeiture and prevent the non-breaching party from being unjustly enriched. The burden of proof rests on the breaching party to demonstrate that the seller's actual damages are less than the amount of the down payment. A liquidated damages clause, such as one for 10% of the purchase price, is presumptively reasonable but can be overcome if the buyer proves the seller suffered no damages or damages substantially less than the stipulated amount. Crucially, the seller's damages must be measured at the time of the breach, not at the time of trial. The trial court erred by using the property's market value six years after the breach to find that the seller suffered no loss; any appreciation in value after the breach rightfully belongs to the seller.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Connecticut with the modern legal trend allowing a defaulting party to seek restitution, shifting the focus of contract remedies from punishment to compensation. It establishes that a liquidated damages clause is not an absolute bar to recovery but rather a rebuttable presumption of the seller's damages. The case's primary significance lies in its clear temporal rule: damages must be assessed at the time of the breach. This prevents a seller from being penalized for a rising market while also preventing a defaulting buyer from benefiting from market fluctuations that occurred long after their breach.
