Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fox v. Doll, 59 So. 2d 443.

17 citing documents.

Bray v. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips, Inc. 409 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Poissenot v. Guildcraft Homes, Inc. 394 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Myers v. Sudo 377 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1979
4th Cir. 1971), , (1952), which states: “it is not necessary to put one formally in default who refuses to perform or who acknowledges an inability to perform.” Here, the vendor sufficiently revealed his unwillingness to sell the property so that putting in default became a vain and useless gesture, which the law does no
Southern Hardware Co. v. Honeywell Information 373 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
(1952); Southern Construction Co. *742 v. Housing Authority of the City of Opelousas, 250 La.
Heatherly v. Rosenberg 372 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
(1952), the Supreme Court stated: "* * * There is no particular form required by Article 1913, R.C.C., for making the demand; it is sufficient that the notification contains demand of performance on the part of the debtor, and announce a readiness on that of the creditor, to do what the agreement r
Law v. Blackshire 367 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Article 2050, Dairy Specialities, Inc. v. Verbene, La.App., .” , in regard to an agreement to purchase real estate.
Andrew Dev. Corp. v. West Esplanade Corp. 347 So. 2d 210 La. 1977
790 , (1954); , (1952); Stockelback v. Bradley, 159 La.
Centanni v. AK Roy, Inc. 258 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Jaffe v. Wood 247 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1952), the Supreme Court held, “it is not necessary to put one formally in default who refuses to perform or who acknowledges an inability to perform.” The record reflects that there was no showing of either a refusal or acknowledgment of inability to perform by the seller so as to make a formal placin
Pierre v. Chevalier 233 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
art. 1932; Poche v. Ruiz, supra; Caplan v. Airport Properties, Inc., supra; , (1952).
Southern Construction Co. v. Housing Authority 197 So. 2d 628 La. 1967
Cox v. Cardinal Drilling Company 188 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
(1952); Melancon v. Texas Company, 230 La.
Pacholik v. Gray 187 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Boudreaux v. Walko Builders, Inc. 130 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
While it is generally not necessary to put in formal default one who refuses to perform, or who acknowledges an inability to perform ( , ), it was held in Bruno v. Serio, La.App., , that, where realty is involved, the vendor cannot forfeit the deposit made by vendee without putting ven-dee formally in default, with an affirmative tender of title.
Elliott v. Dupuy 127 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Plaintiffs rely on the rule that it is unnecessary to put in default one who has refused to perform (Voss v. Roach, La.App., ; , ) and contend that they have alleged such a refusal in Paragraph 4 of their second supplemental petition.
Dufrene v. Tracy 94 So. 2d 297 La. 1957
Caplan v. Airport Properties, Inc. 93 So. 2d 661 La. 1957
“it is not necessary to put one formally in default who refuses to perform or who acknowledges an inability to perform.” The fact that the defendants did not own the property at the time the agreement to purchase was entered into is of no moment.