Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Freidus v. Eisenberg – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In Freidus v. Eisenberg, 123 AD2d 174, 510 N.Y.S.2d 139 [2d Dept 1986]), the Appellate Division stated that "at the outset of our analysis, it is important to note that the underlying action is in equity for specific performance of a contract ... and the issue at the jury trial was the amount of damages flowing from the delay in complying with the contract" (Freidus v. Eisenberg, 123 AD2d at 177).

The Court explained the difference between an action in equity and one in law:

"In a breach of contract action, the purchaser is compensated for loss of bargain by recovering the difference between the value of the property and the contract price, together with such incidental damages as flow from the breach. Here, with specific performance granted, the contract is being performed, and the purchaser has not lost the value of the bargain. Although legal damages are therefore inappropriate, equity will, so far as possible, place the parties in the same situation as they would have been in if the contract had been performed according to its terms '" (id.).