Title: Walton Et Ux v. Denhart Et Ux
Citation: 226 Or. 254, 359 P.2d 890
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 1961

Affirmed March 1, 1961.
*255 Watson D. Robertson, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. On the brief were Davis, Jensen, Martin &amp; Robertson, Portland.
W.C. Beers, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY, GOODWIN and LUSK, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
The plaintiffs brought this suit to rescind a contract to purchase a house being constructed by the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged, as grounds for the rescission, a breach of contract and fraud. The trial court entered a decree denying rescission and the plaintiffs appeal.
There is no evidence of fraud by the defendants which induced the plaintiffs to enter into the agreement. The record shows the plaintiffs were interested in purchasing a new home; the defendant was at this time in the process of constructing a residence in a section of east Portland; the plaintiffs contacted the defendants for the purpose of purchasing the property *256 when the residence was completed; the residence as planned contained three bedrooms on the ground floor only and plaintiffs desired additional bedrooms installed in the basement; other extras were also desired by plaintiffs. An agreement was entered into between the parties as follows:
The house was not entirely completed on May 15, 1957. Some time in June, at the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs made a list of items which they felt should be done to complete the house to their satisfaction.
Plaintiffs testified that on June 30th the defendants had not as yet fastened the black base molding or installed a medicine cabinet in the basement bathroom; had not checked for poorly fitted tile in the basement fireplace; had not fixed a bulge under window in the master bedroom; had not installed decorative blocks on the garage door; had not repainted exterior trim where bugs had collected and rain had damaged; splash blocks had not been put down; interior surfaces had not been washed; where varnish had run onto painted surfaces it had not been redone; the shower rod in a bathroom had not been installed; a room divider in the frontroom was not entirely finished; the molding in the upstairs bathroom was loose; there was a hole around the family room light fixture that had not been filled; and that there was moisture under some of the asphalt tiles in the basement and these tiles were loose.
*259 On July 5, 1957, the plaintiffs prepared and defendants signed the following instrument:
On July 9, 1957, plaintiffs through their attorneys notified defendants as follows:
1. Plaintiffs under their first assignment of error state:
The plaintiffs then argue that the word "exceptance," which was admitted by both parties to be the word "acceptance," implied plaintiffs had an absolute right to reject the house on completion. With this assertion we cannot agree.
The word "acceptance" when considered in context refers to a duty placed upon the plaintiffs at the completion of the house in a good and workmanlike manner, and that was to pay the balance due under the terms of the contract.
2-4. The contention that the house was not completed "on or before May 15, 1957," and, therefore, the plaintiffs were at liberty to withdraw from the contract, is equally without merit.
The terms used in the contract of the parties are not "on or before," as stated by the plaintiffs, but "on or about." The evidence discloses the house was substantially completed on or before June 30th. The words "on or about" do not, as to time, mean "exactly," but "approximately," and as so construed grant a reasonable time for performance after the date mentioned. Passow &amp; Sons v. Harris, 29 Cal App 559, 156 P 997; United States F. &amp; G. Co. v. Robert Grace C. Co., 263 F 283; Brown &amp; Bigelow v. Bard, 118 NYS 371, 64 M 249; Fenner, Beane &amp; Ungerleider v. Donosky, Tex Civ App, 62 SW2d 269.
As to the time element of a contract using the words "on or about," after the expressed date has passed, whether or not there has been a breach of the contract *261 usually may be said to arise out of the subject matter of the contract. See cases supra.
It is, of course, well known that in the construction of a house almost invariably disputes arise as to minor details which may be the subject of controversy. The law does not, therefore, hold contracts of this character to strict timely performance if the contract is substantially performed within the reasonable time set. Wray v. Young, 122 Wash 330, 210 P 794.
The evidence, as set out, shows, except for minor details which would interfere but little with its use while being finished, that the house was completed and ready for occupancy on June 30th. This was certainly within a reasonable time after May 15th, considering the subject matter of the contract.
5. Plaintiff's allegation that it was agreed the house would meet the building requirements of the Federal Housing Act is clearly without merit. The only evidence offered was to the effect that the Federal Housing Act would not approve of bedrooms being located in the basement because of the size of the basement windows which had to be installed due to the fact that the basement walls had been constructed prior to the agreement of the parties. The plaintiffs were informed that the house was not being built under FHA supervision and that no basement bedrooms were included in the original plans. The basement bedrooms were installed at the request of the plaintiffs. Having requested defendants, after the basement walls were in place, to build therein bedrooms, plaintiffs are in a poor position to urge in a court of equity a breach of an agreement, if it could be said there was some evidence of such a breach.
6. The plaintiffs in this case have failed to recognize *262 the rule that a rescission is not warranted where the breach is not substantial and does not defeat the object of the parties. Vaughan et ux. v. Wilson et al., 203 Or 243, 273 P2d 991, 279 P2d 521; Krebs Hop Co. v. Livesley, 51 Or 527, 92 P 1084; Lewis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 181 F 433; American Surety Co. v. Scott &amp; Co., 18 Okla 264, 90 P 7; Brady v. Oliver, 125 Tenn 595, 147 SW 1135; Wray v. Young, supra; Ellison, Son &amp; Co. v. Grocery Co., 69 W Va 380, 71 SE 391.
The decree of the trial court is affirmed. Neither party shall recover costs in this court.