Clair v. Hillenmeyer

Buyer Jeffrey Clair (defendant) added a handwritten contract proviso requiring seller Paul Hillenmeyer (plaintiff) to "repair [the] system to meet code" after noticing septic-system surface percolation; after Clair rejected Hillenmeyer's only proposed fix and made no counterproposal, Clair withdrew from the contract, and Hillenmeyer eventually sold the property to another buyer for substantially less. At trial, testimony conflicted over whether the percolation was normal or a sign of system failure, and the contract's separate preprinted boilerplate clause required the seller to make reasonable repairs acceptable to the buyer upon timely notice; the trial court nonetheless granted Hillenmeyer summary judgment and damages.