Court Opinion

ID: 9582153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:23:11.115269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:29.754857
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellee, Tom Howell & Associates, induced appellant to enter into an "exclusive listing contract” by promising to purchase appellant’s house, at appellant’s option, if the house remained unsold after sixty days. The purchase price would be the "appraised” value of the house. Taking appellee at its word, appellant exercised his option. See 91 CJS 836, Vendor & Purchaser, § 4. Appellee refused to perform. As a result, appellant suffered great financial loss. The majority, holding that the option is unenforceable because the consideration is not sufficiently stated to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, has determined that appellee does not have to compensate appellant for the losses appellant incurred on account of appellee’s breach of faith. I respectfully dissent.
The provisions of the following option for the sale of real estate were at issue in Pearson v. Horne, 139 Ga. 453 (77 SE 387) (1913): "In consideration of an advance of $1,000 to me by H. Home, I hereby agree if I should decide to sell my half interest in the *239property comer of Second and Cherry Streets, Macon, Ga., to give him the option of purchasing same for his clients, at any price that may be offered for the property by other parties.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Georgia Supreme Court held: "The price to be paid was sufficiently stated. Reasonably construed, the contract means that if any price should be offered the defendant which she would be willing to accept, she should give to the plaintiff the option of purchasing at that price.” Id. at 455.
The majority does not attempt to distinguish Pearson from the case at bar. In neither case can the purchase price be ascertained from the contract itself. To essentially the same extent as the contract in Pearson, the contract in the instant case "furnishes the key by which [the purchase price] can be ascertained ...” Baker v. Lilienthal, 176 Ga. 802, 806 (169 SE 28) (1933). Certainly, the price term at issue in this case is no less specific than the price term upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court in Pearson. I do not believe the statement of consideration is insufficient merely because it speaks in terms of an "appraised” value rather than a specific dollar amount. See 77 AmJur2d 213, Vendor & Purchaser, § 33; Coles v. Peck, 96 Ind. 333 (1884); Pearson v. Home, supra.
Obviously, the contract provision at issue in this case is not a paragon of legal draftsmanship. However, under Pearson, I think it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Appellee should be bound by its word.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray joins in this dissent.