Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
The purchaser quit possession of Greenacre and demanded that the landowner repay the amounts the purchaser had paid under the contract. After the landowner refused the demand, the purchaser brought an appropriate action against the landowner to recover damages for the landowner's alleged breach of the contract.
The purchaser entered into possession of Greenacre. After making 10 of the 300 installment payments obligated under the contract, the purchaser discovered that there was outstanding a valid and enforceable mortgage on Greenacre, securing the payment of debt in the amount of 25% of the purchase price the purchaser had agreed to pay. There was no evidence that the landowner had ever been late in payments due under the mortgage and there was no evidence of any danger of insolvency of the landowner. The value of Greenacre now is four times the amount on the debt secured by the mortgage.
A landowner owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. The landowner entered into a valid written agreement with a purchaser under which the landowner agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to buy Greenacre by installment purchase. The contract stipulated that the landowner would deliver to the purchaser, upon the payment of the last installment due, «a warranty deed sufficient to convey the fee simple.» The contract contained no other provision that could be construed as referring to title.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The buyer is at no more risk for having taken possession than she would have been without doing so.
C is incorrect. While technically correct, is irrelevant to these facts since the time to convey title has not yet arrived.
D is incorrect. As explained above, risk of loss is not at issue for this question because the buyer is not any more at risk for taking possession of the property.