Court Opinion

ID: 9854269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:04:07.770304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:59.833339
License: Public Domain

Judge Phillips
dissenting.
The real estate that the parties contracted to purchase and sell was distinctly and definitely identified on the map and description incorporated into the contract as all the land between a 10-acre tract on the north and a creek on the south. This in my view establishes as a matter of law that the parties contracted for the purchase and sale of a specifically described and identified tract of real estate and that the court had no authority to modify that agreement because of their misconception as to the size of the tract. Furthermore, “the approximately 12 acres” defendants were to receive were specifically identified as the entire tract. I would vacate the judgment and remand to the Superior Court for the entry of summary judgment for the plaintiffs.