121 A.2d 268 | D.C. | 1956
Appellees sued for the return of a $2,000 deposit made by them on a contract for the purchase of land in West Virginia. The trial court allowed recovery because the contract provided that the purchasers assume a “present first trust” of $14,000, with interest at 5%, when in fact no such trust was existent or available. The trial court further found that the negotiations between the parties after execution of the contract did not result in a new contract or a modification of the existing contract.
Appellant insists that the, trial court was in error in finding that the parties did’ not agree to a modification of their contract. This argument is based largely on the fact that after appellees Had demanded return of the deposit they were notified of a settlement daté and informed that unless they appeared and made settlement the deposit would be forfeited, and in response thereto they appeared at the place fixed for settlement.
Appellant argues that appellees’ attendance at the place and on the date fixed for
Affirmed.