Opinion ID: 6342114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Option

Text: The district court correctly concluded that, based on the undisputed evidence, Plaintiffs validly exercised their option to purchase the Estate’s one-third interest in AORLLC. Section 3.4 of the 1997 Agreement provided that, if certain conditions were satisfied and Philip failed to bequeath his interest in AORLLC to Plaintiffs in his will, Plaintiffs “shall have an option to purchase Philip’s interest in [AORLLC] at any time after Philip’s death (but not later than one year after his death) for a total purchase price of $1,000. This option shall be 9 exercised by written notice to the Executor of Philip’s estate within the option period referred to above.” App’x at 65–66. After Philip’s death, each Plaintiff timely sent written notice to the Estate indicating his intent to exercise the option, and Sasson’s notice also included a check for $1,000. Defendant nonetheless argues that this was insufficient notice under the contract because Philip had agreed to bequeath his interest to Plaintiffs “in equal shares,” and so Plaintiffs’ “separate, distinct and individual attempts to secure the entire interest were counteroffers.” Mann’s Br. at 34. Section 3.4, however, contains no requirement that the option be exercised “jointly,” and under New York law – which governs this dispute – “courts will not imply a term which the parties themselves failed to insert.” Mitchell v. Mitchell, 440 N.Y.S.2d 54, 55 (2d Dep’t 1981). Section 3.4 requires only that the notice be “written” and that it be sent within one year of Philip’s death; the contract imposes no other restrictions on the form or manner of notice. App’x at 65–66; see Kaplan v. Lippman, 75 N.Y.2d 320, 325 (1990) (“The optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs therefore validly exercised their option under the 1997 Agreement. 10