Connection lost
Server error
Ferguson v. Caspar Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: At a real estate closing, buyers tendered payment but simultaneously demanded the title company hold back funds for repairs. The court held this conditional tender was a breach, so title did not pass, and the buyers lost their right to force the sale.
Legal Significance: A buyer’s tender of payment in a real estate closing must be unconditional. Imposing new conditions not agreed to in the contract, such as demanding an escrow at closing, constitutes a breach, forfeiting the buyer’s right to specific performance and preventing the passage of legal title.
Ferguson v. Caspar Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Appellants (Fergusons) contracted to buy a house from Appellee (Caspar) for cash. The contract required Caspar to convey the property free of municipal violation notices, a provision that would survive delivery of the deed. Caspar had notice of 126 outstanding housing code violations. At the closing, held at a title company acting as an escrow agent, Caspar delivered the executed deed and the Fergusons delivered a check for the purchase price. Immediately after, the Fergusons’ attorney presented a letter demanding the title company withhold $6,125 from the seller’s proceeds to cover the cost of repairs, a condition not in the contract. The settlement officer refused to proceed under this new condition. When the parties could not resolve the impasse, the title company terminated the escrow, returning the deed to Caspar and the check to the Fergusons. Caspar then sold the property to another party. The Fergusons sued for specific performance. The trial court dismissed their complaint, and they appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a real estate purchaser’s tender of payment at closing, conditioned on the escrow agent withholding a portion of the purchase price for unliquidated claims against the seller, constitute sufficient performance to pass legal title and entitle the purchaser to specific performance?
No. The purchasers’ demand to withhold funds was a new, unagreed-upon condition Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a real estate purchaser’s tender of payment at closing, conditioned on the escrow agent withholding a portion of the purchase price for unliquidated claims against the seller, constitute sufficient performance to pass legal title and entitle the purchaser to specific performance?
Conclusion
This case illustrates how a standard real estate closing functions as an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
Where a deed is deposited with an escrow agent, title does not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in rep
Legal Analysis
The court first established that the closing arrangement created an escrow, with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt moll
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A buyer’s tender of payment is ineffective if it imposes new