Cited by

Grp., ¶ 24 (App. 2008) (citation modified); see also Evergreen, 167 Ariz. at 621 (“A suit does not become legally groundless merely because plaintiffs fail to convince the jury of the truth of their allegations.”) (citation modified).

Grp., ¶¶ 14–17 (App. 2008); see, e.g., 5 Philip L. Bruner & Patrick J. O’Connor Jr., Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law § 18:12, at n. 14 (2023) (“Under the principle of ‘freedom of contract,’ parties may agree that performance will be judged under a standard of ‘strict’ or ‘full’ performance.

Grp., ¶ 22 (App. 2008) ().

Group, ¶ 16 (App. 2008))).

on May 4, 2017.” Cross-Appellants contend the Club’s claim instead accrued when the old board voted to accept Loren’s offer on April 5, 2017, citing Mining Investment Group

Grp., ¶ 13 (App. 2008) (“It is well-established that ‘[a] contract for the sale of realty does not effect a transfer of legal title,’ which remains in the seller’s name until the close of escrow.”) (quoting Wayt, 123 Ariz. at 446); (“In a land contract, legal title to

Grp., ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (quoting Goodman v. Newzona Inv.

v. Roberts, -40, ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2008) (failure to close on real estate transaction when “time is of the essence” is a material breach).

Grp., 641, ¶¶ 16, 26 (App. 2008), and review de novo the applicability of A.R.S.

¶10 Fisher cites Mining Investment Group, in which this court declined to apply Restatement § 241 in 4 FISHER v. RONDO POOLS Decision of the Court determining whether to affirm summary judgment on the issue of whether a party materially breached a co

Grp., LLC v. Roberts , , ¶ 16

Grp., ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (stating that it is not the court’s role “to alter, revise, modify, extend, rewrite or remake an agreement” (quoting Goodman v. Newzona Inv.

Grp., ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (quoting Goodman v. Newzona Inv.

Grp., ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (“It is not within the province .

Group, LLC v. 4 DIG AGAVE v. PACIFIC FINANCIAL, et al. Decision of the Court Roberts, ¶ 20 (App. 2008) (“When liquidated damages are specified in a contract, the terms of the contract generally control.” (quoting Roscoe-Gill, 188 Ariz. at 485)); Grubb & Ellis Mgmt.

Group, L.L.C. 7 FLASH/SCHILLINGER v. SAMONS, ¶ 16 (App. 2008), (quoting Goodman v. Newzona Inv.

Group, ¶ 16 , (stating that where a party’s intent "is expressed in clear and unambiguous language, there is no need or room for construction or interpretation and a court may not resort thereto” (citations omitted)).

Group, quoting Goodman v. Newzona Inv.