4/7/14

LREB 315
Kelly V Orrico Case Brief
The plaintiffs Brian and Nicole Kelly entered into a contract with Larry Orrico over the sale of
Brian Kellys home to Larry Orrico. In a trial court, the judge found that the defendant, Larry Orrico had
repudiated the contract with Kelly. The terms of the original contract were that Orrico would purchase
the house for $1.2 million dollars by May 2, 2008. They then rescheduled the closing date to August 20,
2008. The plaintiff put his house up for sale when it became unclear if the defendant would be able to
uphold his end of the contract. Brian Kelly then entered into a contract with a third party to purchase his
home for the same amount, and the defendant didnt object because he was unable to sell his own
house. The defendants failed to close on August 20
th
, as stated, thinking that the plaintiffs had found
another buyer, but the third party defaulted on the contract, and the plaintiffs filed a complaint against
the defendant saying he breached his contract.
The case was originally decided in favor of the plaintiffs in the trial court. The defendant took it
to the appellate court saying that the plaintiffs evidence did not support his claim that the defendant
had repudiated their contract with the plaintiffs.
The appellate court decided in the defendants favor and reversed the trial courts judgment.
The defendants won this case. The plaintiffs only complaint filed was a breach of contract
theory of relief, meaning the plaintiffs had to prove that there was a valid contract, that they performed
as they said they would, and show how the defendant breached it. The plaintiffs didnt make any
complaint that Orrico had anticipatorily repudiated the contract but all of the support they brought to
court was to support an anticipatory repudiation, rather than supporting a breach of contract. There
also had to be clear intent that the defendant wasnt going to uphold their end of the contract, and it
was argued that it was unclear if they would or would not be able to. There was only doubtful and
indefinite statements that may or may not carry out their end, which was not strong enough to argue
anticipatory repudiation.
One principle of contract that was discussed in this case was that there was not a meeting of
minds. When the plaintiffs found a new buyer for their house that was willing to close earlier, the
defendant took their house off the market, but when the new buyer defaulted on their contract, the
plaintiff wanted the defendant to up hold their end of the contract. Also, by saying they found a new
buyer for their house, they revoked the original contract they had with the defendant. Besides the
original contract to sell the house, nothing else was put into writing, it was all orally stated, making it
voidable.