Court Opinion

ID: 9716009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:23:25.141972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:40.773433
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Associate Judge
(dissenting).
I fail to find one word or suggestion' in the contract that bound Carter to extend reasonable cooperation in- furnishing infor*828mation to the Horlicks, which would assist them in securing- a favorable re-appraisal of the property in question. The testimony reflects that the Horlicks through their agent, Mrs. Peck, contacted Carter and presented him a contract signed by the Hor-licks which provided: “It is understood and agreed that this home is to be bought and financed under the G. I. Bill of Rights and is subject to approval by Veterans Administration of purchase price not to exceed Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty ($21,950.00) ; said Eighteen Thousand Dollar First Deed of Trust herein mentioned has already been committed by the First Federal Savings- & Loan Assoc, of Washington, D. C., and said loan must be placed with this company, otherwise this agreement of sale shall become null and void.”
Carter refused to sell to the Horlicks with this provision in the contract. He advised them that he was not interested in obtaining Veterans’ financing because it would tie up the house for a considerable period of time and therefore he would have nothing to do with “V. A.” financing. It was then that Mrs. Peck, agent for the Horlicks, inserted Paragraph 21 (quoted in the majority opinion) into the contract to which provision Carter agreed. Carter testified that it was agreed that the Horlicks would have the burden of obtaining Veterans’ financing, while he, Carter, would be .charged with the responsibility of obtaining other financing if it became necessary.
The nub of this entire case is simply this: Did Carter, under the contract, obligate himself to furnish his, construction costs to the Horlicks so that they might file an appeal with the Veterans Administration in order to obtain a higher appraisal on this house? I do not believe so. . Surely his refusal to furnish the costs was not a breach of the contract because the contract placed no obligation on Carter to furnish this information. I agree with my colleagues that the contract was “inartfully drawn,” but it was drawn by the agent of the Horlicks, not by Carter. While Carter under the contract might be'obligated to give some cooperation, I know 'of no authority which would require him to make known his “trade secrets”, so that his failure to do so would cause him to be charged with interfering with the Horlicks in obtaining their Veterans’ financing. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to show that it is the prevailing custom among builders to submit their construction costs to a prospective purchaser in order for that purchaser to obtain a higher appraisal.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in this case.