[brief] In deciding this appeal, this Court should respectfully decline to condone [...]’s breaches as well as its material misrepresentations to both [...] and the prospective buyer of the property based upon the fundamental tenets of contract law and general principles of equity and uphold the decision below.  The basic facts of this case are simple.  [...] granted a ROFR to [...] on any future sale of the property located at [...] (Premises) through a Motor Fuel Sale Agreement (MFSA) and subsequent amendments.  The ROFR required [...] to “promptly” send a copy of bona fide third party offers to [...], before [...] accepted said offer.  [...] could purchase the Premises on the same terms and conditions for a 30-day period after receipt of the offer.  If any of the terms and conditions changed, [...] was required to present the new offer to [...], creating another 30-day period.  [...] did not abide by the plain terms of the ROFR.  Instead of obtaining and presenting an offer, [...] executed a fully-formed Purchase Sale Agreement (PSA) with third party buyer [...] d/b/a [...]  ([...]) on October 14, 2022 without presenting the offer to [...].  In a belated—but ultimately flawed—attempt to comply with the ROFR, [...] presented [...] with an unsigned copy of the PSA three months after it was executed, creating the illusion that the offer had not yet been accepted.  Moreover, the PSA was fundamentally flawed because it falsely represented to [...] that no ROFR existed on the Premises.  Because [...] misled [...] into believing that the Premises was unencumbered, [...]’s offer lacked a true measure of the market value of the property (one of the purposes of the ROFR mechanism).  When [...] was finally informed of the ROFR several months after the PSA had been signed, [...] attempted to renegotiate the purchase price of the property with [...].  While the purchase price did not change, other terms and conditions of the PSA did:  [...] and [...] executed two separate amendments to the PSA: an environmental disclosure amendment on May 2, 2023, and an amendment on May 8, 2023 which finally recognized [...]’s existing ROFR.  This last amendment constituted the final offer, which [...] ultimately accepted by exercising its preemptive right to purchase the Premises on June 6, 2023.  [...] refused to accept [...]’s exercise of the ROFR.  The instant litigation ensued.  In a comprehensive February 20, 2024 opinion, the Trial Court found that [...] had properly exercised its ROFR within 30 days of the final offer and granted summary judgment compelling specific performance of the sale to [...].  [...]’s appeal claims that the Trial Court erred on three spurious grounds: 1) in not holding that [...] waived its ROFR within 30 days of January 17, 2023; 2) in finding that the May 8, 2023 amendment triggered a new 30-day ROFR period; and 3) in not holding that the 30-day period ran from May 4, 2023, when a partially signed amendment was circulated by [...].  All three arguments are meritless.  [...] had unclean hands in executing the PSA and converting the offer into a binding contract without first notifying [...] of the offer; but once it created an executory contract, by its own terms all amendments were required to be similarly executed by the parties in writing.  The ROFR was exercised within 30 days of the final executed contract.  For these and the reasons set forth below, [...]’s appeal should be denied.