Silverman v. Charmac, Inc.
Decision Date | 02 March 1982 |
Citation | 414 So.2d 892 |
Parties | Joel SILVERMAN and Carolyn Silverman v. CHARMAC, INC. 80-426. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Philip H. Butler and Richard C. Belser of Robison & Belser, Montgomery, for appellants.
John R. Matthews, Jr. of Ball, Ball, Duke & Matthews, Montgomery, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment ordering the appellants, Joel and Carolyn Silverman, to reimburse Charmac, Inc. a pro rata share of the cost of developing property in Woodmere Estates Subdivision, Montgomery County, Alabama. We affirm.
The able trial judge, Joseph D. Phelps, stated the facts as follows in his order:
'For and in consideration of providing $64,600 (Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred and No/100 Dollars) in front and money to CHARMAC, INC., the Silvermans purchased from CHARMAC, INC., a house and 10 acres at cost.
'It is the intent of the Silvermans to retain approximately 6 acres of this tract and sell the remaining 4 acres more or less back to CHARMAC, INC....
'The Silvermans intend to retain the house and the following property: Block B, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 being 6 acres more or less according to the Lotting Plan as prepared by Goodwyn Engineering Company, dated May 14, 1983.
It must first be pointed out that the trial judge heard the evidence ore tenus. In a case tried ore tenus, there is a presumption of correctness and the trial court's findings will not be disturbed unless they are palpably wrong, without supporting evidence or manifestly unjust. Gertz v. Allen, 376 So.2d 695 (Ala.1979); Sudduth v. Sudduth, 366 So.2d 1102 (Ala.1979). The trial court found that the Silvermans received essentially what they bargained for under the contract. The changes in the development plan did not substantially alter the performance of the Silvermans. Furthermore, the trial court found that the Silvermans agreed to the changes in the development plan.
The essence of the appellants' contentions is that the development of the property in accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...difficulty, or hardship, because these contingencies could have been provided against by his contract.’ " Silverman v. Charmac, Inc. , 414 So.2d 892, 894 (Ala. 1982) (citations omitted); see also , Peppertree Apartments, Ltd. v. Peppertree Apartments , 631 So.2d 873, 879 (Ala. 1993) ("The g......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...difficulty, or hardship, because these contingencies could have been provided against by his contract.'" Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So. 2d 892, 894 (Ala. 1982) (citations omitted); see also, Peppertree Apartments, Ltd. v. Peppertree Apartments, 631 So. 2d 873, 879 (Ala. 1993) ("The gen......
-
City of Gulf Shores v. Harbert Intern., 1901241
...Although we have repeatedly rejected the impossibility defense, Alabama Power Co. v. Harmon, 483 So.2d 386 (Ala.1986), Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So.2d 892 (Ala.1982), and Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v. Highland Terrace Apts., 352 So.2d 1108 (Ala.1977), we conclude that Gulf Shores failed t......
-
Rutledge v. Bank of Heflin
...until the time of that conveyance, Based on the above discussion, coupled with the presumptions of the ore tenus rule (Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So.2d 892 [Ala.1982]; Gertz v. Allen, 376 So.2d 695 [Ala.1979] ), we hold that, under the facts of this case, the findings of the trial cour......
-
Can An Epidemic Make Contractual Obligations Impracticable? The Potential Viability Of Ebola-Related Defenses To Contract Enforcement
...doctrine of commercial impracticability constitutes a defense to the performance of a contract in Texas."). Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So. 2d 892, 894 (Ala. 1982) (quoting Alpine Const. Co. v. Water Works Bd. of City of Birmingham, 377 So. 2d 954, 956 (Ala. 1979)) (emphasis added). Con......