Nargiz v. Henlopen Developers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Henlopen Developers ... points to the fact that although the contract did not expressly require it, the appellant's condominium unit was actually completed within two years from the date of the contract. If the purpose of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act is to protect purchasers against fraudulent land development schemes and if the Act is satisfied that no fraud is likely if the sales agreement obligates the seller to erect a building on the land within two years, then Henlopen Developers fails to see where there can be any fraud present when the bargained-for construction is completed within two years. It suggests that to permit the appellant to escape from the contract without penalty under these circumstances is to interpret the Act so as to permit a purchaser to perpetrate a fraud upon a developer who has acted in good faith. "While this may appear to be true, the fact remains that the federal Act exists and, as we have held, applies to this transaction. To be exempt under § 1702(a)(3) from providing the property report and still avoid the purchaser's statutory right to withdraw, the seller must be obligated under the terms of the sales contract to erect a building within two years. The contract imposed no such obligation here, and the language of the statute makes it clear that no such obligation can be implied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 439 So. 2d 1032 - Dorchester Development, Inc. v. Burk

2. “The application of the Act to condominiums has been consistent with OILSR policy since the issue was first raised in 1969. The bases for this position are that condominiums carry the indicia of and in fact are real estate, whether or not the units therein have been constructed. A condominium is accordingly viewed by OILSR as equivalent to a subdivision, each unit being a lot.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 604 F. Supp. 537 - Schatz v. Jockey Club Phase III, Ltd.

3. “[T]he provisions of this title ... shall not apply to — ... . (2) ... sale or lease of land under a contract obligating the seller or lessor to erect [a condominium] thereon within a period of two years.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 472 So. 2d 472 - Marco Bay Associates v. Vandewalle