Court Opinion

ID: 9569720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:16:42.347506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:50.191944
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s order granting respondent’s Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP motion. In my opinion, placing $2,000 in an escrow account pending resolution of the reverse osmosis system issue may not have been the best decision, but it was in no way “so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the purpose of the contract.” Moreover, I do not agree with the majority that a special standard should apply to real estate transactions, since in my view the purpose of any sale is to transfer title from the seller to the buyer. Finally, I agree with the trial judge that rescission cannot lie here as it is impossible to return respondent to the status quo ante the closing.
I would affirm.