Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/2/2massappct798.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:25:12+00:00

Document:
RUPERT S. CARVEN vs. ARTHUR J. FORREST & another.
In this action of contract the defendants demurred to each of the counts in the plaintiff's amended declaration on the ground that the contract declared upon was within the Statute of Frauds (G. L. c. 259, Section 1, Fifth) and that the memorandum annexed to each count was insufficient to satisfy that statute. The demurrer was sustained, and the only question before us is the sufficiency of that memorandum to satisfy the statute. See Weiner v. Lowenstein, 314 Mass. 642, 645-646 (1943); Siegel v. Knott, 316 Mass. 526, 527-528 (1944). The memorandum should have identified the purchaser, either by name or by description; it did not do so. It is, therefore, insufficient. Lewis v. Wood, 153 Mass. 321, 322 (1891). Williams v. Commercial Trust Co. 276 Mass. 508, 517 (1931). Cluff v. Picardi, 331 Mass. 320, 323 (1954). See Pearlstein v. Novitch, 239 Mass. 228, 230 (1921); Cousbelis v. Alexander, 315 Mass. 729, 730 (1944).
WHITNEY WARNER, JR. vs. RICHARD A. WILKEY & another.
judge was right in invoking the clause in the contract entitling the plaintiff to retain the defendants' pre-closing deposit as "liquidated damages." Kaplan v. Gray, 215 Mass. 269, 271-273 (1913). Macurdy v. Carver, 328 Mass. 434, 435 (1952), and cases cited. LaVallee v. Cataldo, 343 Mass. 332, 333-334 (1961). He was also right in assessing as damages the unpaid balance of the amount agreed upon as a deposit. The amount was not so disproportionate to the plaintiff's losses and expenses caused by the defendants' breach as to make the liquidated-damages clause unenforceable as a penalty. See A-Z Servicenter, Inc. v. Segall, 334 Mass. 672, 675 (1956), and cases cited. In determining the amount of those losses and expenses, the judge properly considered the plaintiff's liability for the broker's commission on the abortive sale as well as the difference between the agreed purchase price and the lesser price for which it was actually sold. See Park, Conveyancing with Forms, Section 675, p. 709; Croak v. Owens, 121 Mass. 28, 29 (1876). The final decree is affirmed with interest from the date of the decree in the Superior Court. Johnson v. Hazen, 333 Mass. 636, 638 (1956).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.