Adriana Chavira
FACTS – Kevin Morton and Hung and Carol Nguyen had a contract for deed in which the Nguyens were supposed to give payments for thirty-five years and pay other fees to obtain Morton's property. Yet, Morton failed to provide the Nguyens with all the necessary information under subchapter D and the Nguyens notified Morton that they were exercising their statutory right to rescind the contract. Morton sued for breach of contract and the Nguyens counterclaimed asking Morton to reimburse all previous payments made to him and any additional fees paid under the contract. Morton argued that the Nguyens were not the only ones supposed to get restitution.
ISSUES – Does Subchapter D permit the Nguyens to cancel and rescind the contract? Was Morton entitled to restitution after the Nguyens rescinded the contract? What was Morton's responsibility to the Nguyens after they rescinded the contract? …show more content…
Also, the Supreme Court of Texas stated that the trial court failed to consider that Morton must get restitution for the property value during the Nguyens stay and that the Nguyens are entitled a refund for all payments made to seller.
LAW – Chapter 5, Subchapter D was used in this case, it states that contract for deed must be fulfilled to get the property. Also, that a buyer has a statutory right to cancel and rescind from contract if the seller fails to comply with certain requirements, but both parties must receive restitution not just one party. “Restore property received from the other, mutual restitution”. The Supreme Court of Texas argued that the Nguyens must return any benefits received under contract and that “restitution is not a one-way