Buyer's Remorse or Force Majeure? Contract Amended Mid-Pandemic Leads to Lawsuit in Miami-Dade
The defendant claims its contractual breach should be excused by a force majeure provision, which waives liability when an agreement is thwarted by something unforeseeable. But the opposing side argues the breakdown was instead "a case of buyer's remorse."
June 17, 2020 at 12:43 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Can a party to a contract invoke force majeure forgiveness if the COVID-19 outbreak had already started when they signed on the dotted line?
A Miami-Dade lawsuit seeks to find out.
David B. Rosemberg of Rosemberg Law in Aventura represents real estate holdings company Trumpeter International LLC, which sued after its deal with Spanish citizen Anastasio Vega Garcia fell through during the initial stages of COVID-19-induced closures.
The defendant claims its contractual breach should be excused by a force majeure provision, which waives liability when an agreement is thwarted by something unforeseeable. But Rosemberg argues the breakdown was instead "a case of buyer's remorse."
"When the initial contract was executed, the winds of change were already blowing, in that COVID-19 was already pretty much on everyone's radar around the world," Rosemberg said. "You had parties that amended a contract in the throes of a pandemic, and so it's very hard to say it wasn't foreseeable or it wasn't something that was happening then and there."
Vega Garcia had agreed to pay a $190,000 deposit for the Trumpeter's Miami Beach multi-family building on 650 Euclid Ave. on Feb. 14, according to the complaint. But on March 11 — the day the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic — he asked for an amendment that said Trumpeter would make certain repairs to the building.
Another amendment followed March 23, a week after the Spanish government declared a state of emergency, according to the complaint. This time, the parties agreed to move the closing date from March 25 to April 30.
The contract said that if the deal failed to close the seller could keep the deposit, and it said force majeure events included, "hurricanes, floods, extreme weather, earthquakes, fire, or other acts of God, unusual transportation delays, or wars, insurrections, or acts of terrorism, which, by exercise of reasonable diligent effort, the non-performing party is unable in whole or in part to prevent or overcome," according to the lawsuit.
But when the closing date came and went, the Miami Beach law firm serving as an escrow agent for the deposit declined to release it, citing the force majeure provision.
"The crux of it is, is the coronavirus pandemic an act of God?" Rosemberg said.
Escrow agent Staci Rutman and her firm Rutman Law are also defendants in the case. Rutman declined to comment, but her attorney Sheila Oretsky of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Miami said the plaintiff has agreed to dismiss Rutman Law from the suit.
Vega Garcia's counsel Alexander Orlofsky of the Orlofsky Law Firm in Miami Beach did not provide a comment by deadline.
Thanks to lawsuits like this, Rosemberg says it's widely expected that force majeure provisions will get a lot more specific about pandemics in future. But for now, he said courts across the country are issuing rather different rulings on what does or doesn't constitute an act of God under force majeure provisions.
"Force majeure clauses are something that commercial litigators have been chewing on for three meals a day since the COVID-19 outbreak," Rosemberg said. "The analysis will come down to: What was the hindering force? Was it COVID-19? Was it a government restriction? And you have to look at the specific language of every force majeure provision to see what is contemplated, what is specifically addressed, what is not addressed."
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jose Rodriguez will preside over the litigation.
Read the full complaint:
Read more:
After Reports of Porn on Zoom, PDA and Attorneys With No Pants, Broward Chief Judge Is Clamping Down
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readZoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250