Court Opinion

ID: 9932613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:40:59.481069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:39.243701
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent. I would treat the trial court's holding as consistent with a finding that the language of paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d) was included in the purchase agreement to protect the buyers from being required to close if they could not acquire all of the fractional interests in the property. A provision inserted in a contract for the benefit of a party can be waived. SeeLaGrave v. Jones, 336 So.2d 1330-1332 (Ala. 1976). The Pimperls' conduct clearly constitutes a waiver of the provision protecting them from being required to go forward even if deeds could not be secured for the entire property.
HARWOOD, J., concurs.