Opinion ID: 1824722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Contractual Liability for Rent.

Text: The contractual obligation for rent stems out of the following provision in the offer to purchase: This offer to purchase is subject to three (3) apartments (the first floor-south-apartment excepted) being rented on  leases of one (1) year duration at $127.50 per month including garage. Although the complaint for the rent is couched in terms of a mere breach of contract, the plaintiffs upon this appeal have expressed their claim in terms of fraud and duress. So far as a contractual duty is concerned, we are unable to interpret the offer to purchase and the quoted clause as a continuing promise by the defendant to rent the three apartments. By its own terms, the clause provides that this offer to purchase is subject to ... apartments ... being rented. We think this clearly expresses a condition by the offerors that they may be relieved of their offer if the three apartments were not leased for the term and at the rentals expressed in the offer to purchase. In other words, the prospective purchaser reserved the right to refuse to go through with the contract if the necessary leases were not procured. As in the case of Fun-N-Fish, Inc., v. Parker (1960), 10 Wis. (2d) 385, 103 N. W. (2d) 1, which involved a somewhat-related problem, the instant offer to purchase also contained the clause that no representations other than those expressed herein, either oral or written, are a part of this sale. We are unable to construe the contract as one which provided a continuing duty on the part of the seller to find tenants for the apartmentseven after the closing. Such an interpretation does violence to the language of the agreement and imposes upon the seller a burden which is foreign to his contract. We understand the contract to provide the buyers with a conditional right to refuse to consummate the purchase if the seller failed to produce the appropriate leases; this is vastly different from the seller's accepting the responsibility of finding tenants at some period subsequent to the closing of the real-estate transaction or of being personally responsible for such rentals.  The duty to rent the apartments did not survive the delivery of the deed. While it is possible for collateral undertakings to survive the consummation of a real-estate sale, such undertakings must be apparent from the preliminary contract or made a covenant in the deed. The cases on this subject are analyzed in an annotation in 38 A. L. R. (2d) 1310, which supplements an earlier annotation on the same subject matter in 84 A. L. R. 1008. At the time of the closing, it was known to all the parties that the contemplated leases had not been procured. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that they were threatened with a lawsuit if they failed to consummate the purchase. They attended such closing with their attorney, and we find it difficult to believe that they were imposed upon by the threat of a lawsuit. As a general rule, the threat to start proceedings in litigation is not such duress as is recognized in the law of contracts. 5 Williston, Contracts (rev. ed.), p. 4501, sec. 1606. We are persuaded that the trial court erred in granting judgment to the plaintiffs on the first portion of the complaint. We conclude that there is no merit to this part of the plaintiffs' complaint and that the judgment which allowed $697.43 thereon must be reversed. As to this phase of the complaint there must be a dismissal on the merits.