The decision taken by the Court of Special Appeals was to reverse the judgment that had been previously made in the case of Hovnanian Land Investment Group vs. Annapolis Towne Centre. The intermediate court had made the decision by determining that that the existence of a “non-waiver” clause was not dispositive for the waiver inquiry, the determination is a factual one which requires resolution of inferences and disputes. Taking the judgment positively the court was able to and the legal principles in which the court made its decision was the existence of waiver clauses. This judgment was also beneficial in that all the channels of pursuing justice had been followed, and each court decision had been made independently.
The court of special appeals reversed the earlier decision made by the intermediate appellant court. This decision was made as the court looked at the parties actions before and after both parties had allegedly breached the contract between them.
According to the decision made, a party can surrender a position precedent by approving, in advance, to a course of action which would not otherwise comply with a contractual requirement. The party may also give up a position held precedent after a breach by failing to declare its solutions for that violation.
In terms of what the court did procedurally, the court allowed the smaller intermediate courts to try and make viable decisions. In the case of the existence of and difficulties, the parties could be able to file appeals at the court of Special appeals. I think the decision made by the special court of appeals was a final one. The parties in the case should try and come up with a solution that is beneficial to them.
Judge Cardozo wrote the majority of the opinion. He wrote resoundingly to reject a party’s effort to rely on a non-waiver clause. Judge Cardozo argued that the parties that make a contract may unmake the contract. He added that what one clause omits may exclude, the other clause may restore the omitted action. He concluded by stating that when parties enter into a contract, no limitation that is between them can obliterate their authority to agreement again.
There were also minority opinions. The opinions concurred with the initial decision made by the intermediate courts. These opinions were written by Judge Bell, who only joined the jury in making the decisions.
The difference between the minority opinion and the majority opinion is the application of the waiver clause. The minority opinion wants strict adherence to non waiver clauses while the majority opinion wants the freedom of the contracting partners to change their terms whenever they decide to do so.This decision was issued by the special courts of appeal. This case got to the special courts of appeal after there had been appeals and counter appeals. The manner in which this case was handled raises concerns. Under its explanation of the law, a party could explicitly surrender a position, and induce dependence by the other party. Neither our previous decisions nor equitable doctrines allow this result.
