Bernstein v. Nemeyer Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Bernstein v. Nemeyer Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Bernstein v. Nemeyer | 570 A.2d 164 (1990) In contracts, expectation damages seek to put the nonbreaching party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. Sometimes, restitution is the appropriate measure. What do restitution damages require? The Connecticut Supreme Court faced this question in the 1990 case Bernstein versus Nemeyer. Ronald Nemeyer and Cheshire Management Company, as general partners, along with some investors, formed the CMC-Southwest Limited Partnership to buy and renovate two apartment complexes in Houston, Texas. Later, the general partners sought additional limited partners, called the Class B limited partners, to invest. The general partners admitted that the risk of foreclosure was high. The complexes were fully mortgaged, and the Houston real estate market was depressed. To afford reassurance, the general partners agreed to provide a so-called negative cash-flow guarantee. Specifically, the general partners would lend the limited partnership the amount that operating expenses and other costs exceeded normal operating revenues. With this understanding, the Class B limited partners invested over one million dollars. Per the guarantee, the general partners lent the limited partnership around 3 million dollars. Even so, losses mounted. Eventually, the general partners stopped lending to the limited partnership, the limited partnership declared bankruptcy, the complexes were foreclosed upon, and the venture failed. The general partners lost their loans, and the Class B limited partners lost their investment. Naturally, litigation ensued. In the Connecticut Superior Court, the Class B limited partners sued the general partners for, among other things, breach of contract for ceasing to lend to the limited partnership. The Class B limited partners sought rescission of the contract and restitution, namely, a return of their investment. The trial court found for the general partners on three bases. First, the breach of the negative cash-flow guarantee wasn’t a material breach; second, the Class B limited partners’ losses owed to market forces, not the breach; and, third, the Class B limited partners received the tax benefits for which they invested in the limited partnership. The Class B limited partners appealed directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bernste... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bernste... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries