Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Contracts
Summary Of Newmar Corp. V. Mccrary, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 67, Shaina Plaksin
Summary Of Newmar Corp. V. Mccrary, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 67, Shaina Plaksin
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether a purchaser of a motor home may revoke acceptance and recover the purchase price from the motor home’s manufacturer under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Summary Of Khan V. Bakhsh, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 57, Sara Stephan
Summary Of Khan V. Bakhsh, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 57, Sara Stephan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal of the district court’s order excluding the use of extrinsic evidence under the statute of frauds. The Court held that the statute of frauds does not apply to a writing that is subsequently lost or destroyed, and oral evidence is admissible to prove the existence and terms of that lost or destroyed writing. The Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision for further proceedings.
Summary Of Galardi V. Naples Polaris, Llc, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, A. J. Hames
Summary Of Galardi V. Naples Polaris, Llc, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, A. J. Hames
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This dispute arose out of a written option contract. Under the contract, respondent Naples Polaris (Naples) had the right to purchase Las Vegas real property from appellants Jack Galardi and Birdie, LLC (together, Galardi), for $8 million “cash.” The property was subject to a deed of trust securing approximately $1.3 million in debt. The issue was whether the option contract required Galardi to deliver clear title, or whether Naples would take title subject to the $1.3 million debt. Trade usage and industry custom were used to interpret the contract, even though it was unambiguous.
Summary Of Holcomb Condo. Hoa V. Stewart Venture, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18, Drew Wheaton
Summary Of Holcomb Condo. Hoa V. Stewart Venture, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18, Drew Wheaton
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered whether statutory limitation periods for constructional defects may be contractually modified by parties to residential unit purchase agreements. The Court examined if the district court’s dismissal of Holcomb Condominium Homeowners’ Association’s (HCHA) negligence-based claims was proper under NRS 116.4116. The Court also analyzed if a contractual reduction of the six-year limitations period of a warranty claim, as found within an arbitration agreement attached to and incorporated by a purchase contract, satisfied the “separate instrument” requirement of NRS 116.4116. Lastly, the Court looked at whether the district court erred in denying HCHA’s repeated requests to amend its complaint.