green
Positive treatment
Issue: essence clauseDE ↗
Issue: parol evidence ruleDE ↗
Issue: integration clauseDE ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
23.4 score
“the closing date of each previous phase can vary by as much as nearly a year depending on how many extension options are exercised, and whether horton elects its option under section 6 to pursue the approvals itself.”
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC and Roxanna Road LLC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the closing date of each previous phase can vary by as much as nearly a year depending on how many extension options are exercised, and whether horton elects its option under section 6 to pursue the approvals itself.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
26 Capital Acquisition Corp. v. Tiger Resort Asia LITD
Because specific performance is an equitable remedy, its application must be warranted on the facts and consistent with equitable principles. “[S]pecific performance is a matter of grace that rests in the sound discretion of the court.” Peden v. Gray, 2005 WL 2622746, at *3 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trevor White v. Teresa Russell and Charles Grisdale
Nov. 14, 2022) (citations omitted). 95 Peden v. Gray, 2005 WL 2622746, at *3 (Del. 2005) (citations omitted). 96 Utz v. Utz, 2003 WL 22952579 , at *3 n.11 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Twin Willows, LLC v. Lewis Pritzkur, Trustee for Patricia E. Gibbs, Dawn R. Ellery, Gwen D. Rinaldi, Patricia E. Gibbs, and Robin Silverman
Jan. 30, 2006). 107 Agreement, art. 10. 108 See Penden v. Gray, 886 A.2d 1278 , 2005 WL 2622746, at *3 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Reich Consulting Group, Inc.
Ch. 2006) (“‘Specific performance is a matter of grace that rests in the sound discretion of the court.’ Under Delaware law, a party seeking the equitable remedy of specific performance must prove the existence and terms of an enforceable contract by clear and convincing evidence.” (quoting Peden v. Gray, 2005 WL 2622746, at *3 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Twin Willows, LLC v. Lewis Pritzkur
Osborn v. Kemp, 991 A.2d 1153, 1161 (Del. 2010). 44 Agreement, ¶ 10. 45 See Penden v. Gray, 886 A.2d 1278 , 2005 WL 2622746, at *3 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Oxbow Carbon LLC Unitholder Litigation
Feb. 4, 1998). 22 Peden v. Gray, 2005 WL 2622746, at *3 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TA Operating LLC v. Comdata, Inc.
For support, defendants cite the rule in Peden v. Gray that “specific performance will not be granted to a party in breach of the agreement sought to be enforced.”264 In Peden, the Court denied a request to specifically enforce a land sales contract because the purported buyer was not “ready, willing, and able to perform his obligations under the contract.”265 Peden is readily distinguishable from this case, where defendants do not challenge TA’s willingness or ability to perform under the Merchant Agreement, but seek to terminate the Merchant Agreement based on a theory of failure o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Liquidation of Freestone Insurance Company
Peden v. Gray, 2005 WL 2622746, at *2 (Del. 2005) (TABLE) (“The parol evidence rule bars evidence of additional terms to a written contract, when that contract is a complete integration of the agreement of the parties.” (internal quotations omitted)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEDEN
v.
GRAY.
v.
GRAY.
188, 2005.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Oct 14, 2005.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Chancery of Delaware (1)
Decision without published opinion. AFFIRMED.