Opinion ID: 1125501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Concerning Time

Text: The instrument which was prepared in Los Angeles, with the thought that it would be signed by Trautwein and Woods as an offer to purchase, contained this provision: If this offer is not accepted by the seller on or before midnight, December 4, 1967, it shall become null and void   . Of course, if it is to be assumed that Leavey made an oral offer, it must be said the offer was limited to those terms set forth in the prepared instrument. Leavey did not agree, expressly or impliedly, to be bound indefinitely. It was clearly contemplated Trautwein and Woods (if they accepted what Leavey was proposing) would sign in sufficient time for Leavey and his wife to sign on or before December 4, 1967. In the record there is a penciled notation opposite the date of December 4, 1967 which reads Extended orally to 6. It is not clear who is supposed to have extended the time, but it is immaterial. No attempt was made on behalf of the buyers to remove their qualified acceptance of Leavey's proposal until after December 6, or on December 7. If it could be said acceptance on the part of buyers would be good a day or two after the deadline of December 6, the same logic would dictate that acceptance a year or two after December 6 would be equally good. That, however, was clearly not the intention of the parties. Leavy did not promise or imply any promise to bind himself after December 6, 1967 on any oral offer of sale. Having shown why no oral contract was made between the negotiating parties, we find it necessary to uphold the judgment of the district court. We therefore need not discuss the effect of the statute of frauds. Affirmed.