Procedural Posture

0 Comments

Appellant, the purchaser of two lots, sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which entered judgment in favor of respondent company in an action brought by the purchaser to recover money paid to the company on the ground that the company had breached the contract for the sale of the lots in that it had failed to put in street improvements as agreed within the time specified.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides more information on myedd

Overview

The company contended that the decision of the trial court could be upheld upon the ground that the demand for the deeds to the lots, together with their improvement, was premature. The company also argued that the finding of the court, which was, in effect, that the company was not indebted to the purchaser at the time specified in the complaint, could be upheld on the ground that a new agreement had been entered into between the parties, whereby the performance of the mutual obligations under the original contract was extended for a period of two years. On appeal, the court rejected the company’s contentions. The court held that since the company president had declared that the company would not perform its obligation under the contract, the obligee had an immediate right of action for the breach. The court also held that a new contract was not entered into between the parties whereby the terms of the original contract were altered, nor was there an executed oral agreement. The court held that the agreement to put in the improvements was a condition concurrent with the agreement to make payment of the last installment. Thus, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which entered judgment in favor of a company in an action brought by a purchaser of two lots to recover money paid on a contract for the sale of the lots. The court held that the purchaser of the lots had an immediate right of action for breach of contract when the company president declared that the company would not perform its obligation under the contract.