Statement A: A party can simultaneously file an action to annul a contract and to reform it. Statement B: Earnest money is a part of the purchase price. Only Statement 'A' is false... Statement A: A party can simultaneously file an action to annul a contract and to reform it. Statement B: Earnest money is a part of the purchase price. Only Statement 'A' is false. Only Statement 'B' is false. Both statements are false. Neither is false.
Understand the Problem
The question is evaluating two legal statements regarding contracts and earnest money to determine their truthfulness. The focus is on whether each statement holds true in a legal context, specifically about the annulment and reform of contracts and the characterization of earnest money.
Answer
Both statements are false.
The final answer is: Both statements are false.
Answer for screen readers
The final answer is: Both statements are false.
More Information
A party cannot simultaneously file an action to annul a contract and to reform it because these are contradictory remedies. Earnest money is typically a deposit and not part of the purchase price, but is often applied toward it if the sale goes through.
Tips
A common mistake is not differentiating between the functions of annulment and reformation of a contract. Another mistake is misunderstanding earnest money as being an automatic part of the purchase price rather than a deposit.
AI-generated content may contain errors. Please verify critical information
