Rosens (P) agreed to purchase the Luttingers' (D) premises for $85,000. This was subject to the condition of P obtaining a first mortgage from a bank or lending institution in the amount of $45,000 for a term of no less than 20 years at an interest rate not exceeding 8.5% per annum. P agreed to use due diligence in seeking the financing but applied to only one bank because that was the only one lending as much as $45,000 on single-family dwellings. The agreement called for a refund of P’s deposit if the loan could not be obtained. The bank would not commit to an interest rate lower than 8.75%. D's attorney offered to make up the difference between the rate offered by the bank and the 8.5% rate provided for in the contract by lowering the purchase price. P refused and sued for a refund of their deposit. D claimed that P failed to use due diligence to get the loan. The trial court rendered judgment for P and D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.