Court Opinion

ID: 9677393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:51:20.012924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:57.771479
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). The appellant contends that the court did not treat explicitly a term in the offer not found in the listing contract, which term the appellant asserts is a material variance from the listing contract. That term was that payments were due on the 25th of each month “unless payments from the Welfare Department are late,” in which event they would be due four days after “such payments are received.” As is the case with other alleged variances specifically treated in the opinion, the defendant specified no objection to this alleged variance when it rejected the offer to purchase. Thus the defendant is “barred from asserting his right to refuse to accept a provision not contained in the listing agreement by reason of his previous failure to specify such an objection to the offer.” The other issues raised by the appellant on this motion for rehearing have been heretofore considered by the court and rejected.
The motion for rehearing is denied, without costs.