Court Opinion

ID: 9546023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:23:52.682412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:54.664457
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*622Warde H. Erwin, Portland for the petition.
HOLMAN, J.
(Pro Tempore)
Plaintiffs in their petition for rehearing state as follows:
“On oral argument, plaintiffs called the court’s attention to the distinction between a cause for ‘specific performance of a contract to reduce the oral agreement of the parties to writing’ and ‘a suit for specific performance of an oral contract to convey real estate.’
“In view of this appellate court’s decision, the distinction becomes important because it bears on the question of whether the court was correct in holding that plaintiffs and not defendants were the defaulting party.”
They again state in their petition as follows:
“I repeat plaintiffs’ suit (if the court would just examine the pleadings) was to require the defendants to reduce their oral agreement to writing ■—-in other words to comply with the statute. It was not to enforce an oral contract for the sale of land.”
Despite these statements the prayer of plaintiffs’ complaint requests as follows:
“1. Requiring defendants to execute an agreement in writing * * *
“2. Requiring plaintiffs to execute a deed of the land * * *
“3. Ordering payment of all sums due under said agreement * * *”
Plaintiffs thus assert the novel idea that if one of the provisions of an oral contract, which would normally be within the statute of frauds, is to subsequently reduce the contract to writing, all one has to do to avoid the statute is to first request the contract *623be reduced to writing and then ask its performance. The statute of frauds does not rest upon such an unsubstantial footing.
Plaintiffs assert that it was defendants’ fault the contract was not reduced to writing and thus it was defendants’ fault that the contract was not performed. "We will presume it was defendants’ fault the contract was not reduced to writing. The thing that determines whether defendants are entitled to the return of their down payment is at whose door lies the fault for non-performance. Performance means the carrying out of the actual purpose for which the contract was made. The parties could perform the contract even though it was not reduced to writing. The thing that made it impossible of performance was lack of access. We disagree with plaintiffs’ contention that there was access.
In their petition for rehearing plaintiffs have called the court’s attention to an obvious error in the original opinion. It stated that a written contract with International for the right-of-way was necessary for defendants’ protection before defendants entered into a written contract with plaintiffs. This, of course, is not so, as the parties could have made a written contract requiring the plaintiff to furnish the right-of-way as a condition precedent to defendants’ performance. This, however, in no way affects the basic premises on which the case was decided, i.e., the contract was never Capable of performance because of lack of access. With the above correction we adhere to the original opinion and the petition for rehearing is denied.