Court Opinion

ID: 9844840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:10:08.46961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.929468
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Justice,
with whom
PORTER, Justice, concurs (dissenting).
Except for the loss of approximately 400 head of sheep and the feed and grain which were on the ranch at the time possession was given to appellant, the respondent has received back all that he contracted to convey and transfer to appellant, plus improvements of the value of $1,786.63. Appellant was required to and did pay 35% of the púrchase price at the time of the execution of the contract, which by that instrument was subject to forfeiture immediately'thereafter, should a default that soon occur. On the total purchase price of $105,000 appellant had paid $40,300 of principle, exclusive of the $9,000 credited for the sheep returned. Even allowing for the decline in value of the sheep ranch the forfeiture of such a payment for such a short period of occupation of the property is so unconscionable as to constitute a penalty. Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451, 272 P.2d 1020.
In our opinion equity should require respondent to repay at least $10,000 thereof to appellant. Such repayment would still leave respondent whole.