Court Opinion

ID: 9633648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:55:34.621627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:39.327262
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Justice
(concurring):
I concur. I write to point out that the defendants other than the Austins are sub-purchasers of the property. The Austins have never assigned their interest in the contract or property to any of the other defendants. Therefore, the written acceleration notice required by paragraph 16C of the contract needed to be given only to the Austins and not to the subpurchasers. Cf. Hadlock v. Showcase Real Estate, Inc., 680 P.2d 395 (Utah 1984).
I am also of the opinion that if, as asserted by defendants, plaintiffs have habitually accepted late payments on the contract, this fact could be raised to support an argument that it would be unconscionable to now allow plaintiffs to accelerate the contract without first giving Austins adequate notice that strict performance would be required in the future. See Pacific Development Co. v. Stewart, 113 Utah 403, 195 P.2d 748 (1948).