Opinion ID: 1808481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Buyers' Refusal to Close

Text: Assuming arguendo, the existence of a valid contract, Gonzales next submits that Buyers breached the contract by their refusal to close on or before July 2, 1981, as mandated by the purchase agreement. We disagree. Buyers' refusal to close was obviously the result of Gonzales's after the fact inclusion of an additional matter ( i.e., the due on sale clause) not originally contained in the purchase agreement. Established principles of the law of contracts, even under the most liberal of interpretations, do not equate such action by buyers with a breach of the contract to purchase. For the error noted, the judgment is reversed; and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.