benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / An owner of land contracted to sell it to a buyer for …

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

An owner of land contracted to sell it to a buyer for $100,000, its fair market value at that time. After an unanticipated zoning change increased the land's fair market value to $150,000 during the executory period, the owner refused to close. Wishing to avoid a lawsuit, the buyer assigned the contract (which the contract did not forbid) in an arm's-length transaction to an investor, who is experienced in buying and selling real estate. The investor paid the buyer $25,000. The investor knew of the owner's refusal to close, and the owner continued to refuse to close despite the investor's demands that he do so. The investor has sued the owner for specific performance. Who will likely prevail?
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
An owner of land contracted to sell it to a buyer for $100,000, its fair market value at that time. After an unanticipated zoning change increased the land's fair market value to $150,000 during the executory period, the owner refused to close. Wishing to avoid a lawsuit, the buyer assigned the contract (which the contract did not forbid) in an arm's-length transaction to an investor, who is experienced in buying and selling real estate. The investor paid the buyer $25,000. The investor knew of the owner's refusal to close, and the owner continued to refuse to close despite the investor's demands that he do so. The investor has sued the owner for specific performance. Who will likely prevail?
Original LaTeX notation
An owner of land contracted to sell it to a buyer for $100,000, its fair market value at that time. After an unanticipated zoning change increased the land's fair market value to $150,000 during the executory period, the owner refused to close. Wishing to avoid a lawsuit, the buyer assigned the contract (which the contract did not forbid) in an arm's-length transaction to an investor, who is experienced in buying and selling real estate. The investor paid the buyer $25,000. The investor knew of the owner's refusal to close, and the owner continued to refuse to close despite the investor's demands that he do so. The investor has sued the owner for specific performance. Who will likely prevail?

choices

  1. The investor, because an assignee of the original party purchaser in a real estate contract is entitled to specific performance under these circumstances.
  2. The investor, because she has elected to waive the owner's lack of marketable title caused by the zoning change.
  3. The owner, because the investor is not a bona fide assignee without notice, and thus does not have clean hands.
  4. The owner, because the investor, who is experienced in buying and selling real estate, is entitled to money damages but not to specific performance.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

task_id
ba219204-5592-56f5-876f-d864c93befb1
task_key
all--test--ba219204-5592-56f5-876f-d864c93befb1
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import