Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 95-2329
Defendant, Appellant,
v.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
Errata Sheet
Errata Sheet
The
opinion of
this
Court issued
on
July 17,
amended as follows:
8, change
read "Wainwright"
second "Boulos"
to
1996,
is
No. 95-2329
Defendant, Appellant,
v.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
____________________
Boulos
The
During
Boulos.
I.
I.
__
Facts
Facts
_____
Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir.
________
____________________
1994).
____________________
1.
from The
Boulos Company
(a corporation), for
-22
simplicity we
Khanna subsequently
million.
million.
-33
The
equally by the Buyer & Seller except Seller will pay the
$1,100,000."
With that
"Purchase price of
Although Khanna
-44
deal was for $1.1 million for the entire property "as is,"
forth two rationales for its position that Khanna was to pay
$1.35 million.
II.
II.
___
Prior Proceedings
Prior Proceedings
_________________
Wainwright
Wainwright filed a
-55
In
Accordingly,
Wainwright appeals.
-66
III.
III.
____
Discussion
Discussion
__________
full commission?
issues.
Although
-77
claim.
presented.
first, by
of the P&S.
follows:
I think that's
But to
-88
And
The court's
The court
The parties
-99
required.
Viewing
The
confusion.
-1010
What is the
standard of care when the client wants to play games with the
figures?
[Bank's lawyer]:
[Boulos]:
Yes.
The
. . . .
[Bank's lawyer]:
[Boulos]:
Correct.
[Bank's lawyer]:
You have a
. . . .
[Bank's lawyer]:
[Boulos]:
Correct.
[Bank's lawyer]:
[Boulos]:
That's correct.
-1111
Thus, all the court heard about the standard of care was that
the parties."
economic value.
We hold, even
Boulos.
agreement.
First, without
-1212
Moreover, we are
Boulos
purchaser.
-1313
estate."
A handwritten notation
judgment.'"
390).
In
interest.
action."
89 (1964), cited in
________
-1414
information."
not relevant.
The district
the evidence.
problems or confusion.
-1515
commission on the sale of only the real property, and not the
We also consider
purchase and sale agreement, and thus (we assume the argument
Where a contract is
Helm Corp., 329 A.2d 144, 146-47 (N.H. 1974), and the trier
__________
Gel Sys., Inc. v. Hyundai Eng'g & Constr. Co., 902 F.2d 1024,
______________
___________________________
____________________
2.
We
the court
erroneously considered
parties' intent
agreement
extrinsic evidence
between
Wainwright
and
when the
Boulos
of the
listing
unambiguously
personal property.
before the
attempted to do so.
Co.,
___
But
district court,
time on appeal,
and it
even if
cannot be
-1616
the property.
on tax concerns.
no valid agreement.
sale price.
Wainwright's
million.
-1717
IV.
IV.
___
Conclusion
Conclusion
__________
-1818