Pullman, Comley, Bradley and Reeves v. Tuck-It-Away, Bridgeport, Inc.

Vestpro (defendant) contracted to buy property from Tuck (defendant) with $100,000 held in escrow by attorneys Pullman, Comley (plaintiff), but before closing Tuck learned Vestpro lacked purchase funds, Vestpro's attorney found a property-description error, and Vestpro sent a letter attempting to cancel based on a lis pendens, an attachment, and the description error rather than appearing at closing; Tuck also did not appear at the closing. The escrow agent interpleaded the funds, and the trial court awarded the full $100,000 to Tuck as liquidated damages for Vestpro's failure to close, prompting Vestpro's appeal.