Court Opinion

ID: 5019798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 03:58:12.734927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:02:48.561204
License: Public Domain

The writer now concurs with the above opinion, which is of course opposite in effect to the concurring opinion filed in the original hearing by the undersigned. This change of position is due to the fact that upon careful reconsideration of the entire matter it does seem that the nonwaiver agreement was carefully prepared to protect and preserve all rights and remedies of the parties therein concerned. That being true, and the appellant having vigorously urged that it maintained then and now that it had paid appellee for the property purchased, it seems only right and equitable that it should be permitted to assert its pleaded payment in the present law suit. If it is mistaken or wrong it can be decided by the trial court. While this is a complete reversal of the writer's opinion, it does seem to be both justified and necessary in view of the premises, the position of the parties and the language of the non-waiver agreement.