Court Opinion

ID: 9530653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:02:11.777024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:12.664089
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.,
concurring:
This case was presented to the lower court and here on the proposition that Finnell’s breach of the option contract occurred when she failed to deliver her stock into escrow at the Los Angeles bank within a reasonable time after Bromberg had exercised his option to purchase. On May 20, 1959 Bromberg gave written notice of election to exercise his power of acceptance and also made a tender of the purchase price through escrow. Nothing remained for him to do, assuming that his tender of the purchase price through escrow was a proper tender. The legal battle was waged below and here over this point, i.e., whether the tender of payment through escrow was legally sufficient. I agree with my colleagues that it was. The escrow instructions are clear that, upon deposit of the stock, the money would be immediately paid and Finnell would have no further interest in the escrow. This fact alone distinguishes this case from McCall v. Carlson, 63 Nev. 390, 172 P.2d 171, so heavily relied on by appellant. As to Finnell, the escrow arrangement here proposed amounted to no more than a request that she deliver the stock to the bank as Bromberg’s agent, rather than to Bromberg directly. No conditions were imposed to give cause for complaint that Bromberg had not met the terms of the option contract. Accordingly, I find no impropriety in using the market value of the stock on May 25, 1959 for the purpose of computing damages. It was Finnell’s duty to deliver the stock within a reasonable time after May 20, 1959. Thus, I am not prepared to state, on this record, that the trial court erred in deciding that five days was a reasonable time to require Finnell’s performance. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment below without remand for a limited new trial.
*229Had the case been presented on the theory that Finnell’s unequivocal repudiation of the option contract on June 2, 1959 (“I am not going to deliver the stock.”), was an anticipatory breach of her obligation to do so, a remand for a limited new trial would be appropriate.1 However, the theory of anticipatory breach, as applied to this case, assumes that Bromberg had not completely exercised his option on May 20, 1959. Only if we were to decide that Bromberg’s tender of payment through escrow was improper, or if we refused to decide that question at all, would the theory of anticipatory breach, as a predicate for recovery, come into the case. In that event the record would support the following: (a) on May 20, 1959, Bromberg gave written notice of election to exercise his power of acceptance. 1 Corbin, Contracts § 264, at 876; Milner v. Dudrey, 77 Nev. 256, 362 P.2d 439 ;2 and (b) on June 2, 1959 Finnell unequivocally repudiated the option contract when 21 days still remained within which Bromberg could tender payment of the purchase price. Such repudiation was an anticipatory breach excusing the tender of payment by Bromberg, 4 Corbin, Contracts, at 920, and giving him immediate cause for suit without waiting for the option period to expire. 4 Corbin, Contracts, at 853; Bonde v. Weber, 6 Ill.2d 365, 128 N.E.2d 883; cf. Cladianos v. Friedhoff, 69 Nev. 41, 240 P.2d 208.3
Thus it is manifest that the distinction between the two possible theories of recovery (each being supported by the record) may affect the amount of damages to which Bromberg is entitled. The market value of the stock fluctuated during May 1959. Its value on June 2, 1959 (the date to be used for fixing damages if the *230theory of recovery is anticipatory breach) may be greater or less than it was on May 25, 1959 (the date which the trial court presumably used, believing that Bromberg’s tender of payment through escrow was proper). I believe that an appellate court should sustain a judgment upon the theory presented by counsel and used by the trial court, if it is sustainable on that ground. Cf. Nelson v. Sierra Construction Corp., 77 Nev. 334, 364 P.2d 402 (concurring opinion). However, as the judgment in Bromberg’s favor is also sustainable on the theory of anticipatory breach, with a remand for the sole purpose of recomputing his damages, I will concur in the result.

 Tlie record does not disclose the market value of the stock on June 2, 1959. Hence, a remand for that determination would be needed to fix damages.

 “The present case is to be distinguished from those cases in which the option holder is to exercise his option only by the unilateral act of tendering payment of the purchase price. See: Bourdieu v. Baker, 6 Cal.App.2d 150, 44 P.2d 587, as an example.

 “The record shows that suit was commenced on June 11, 1959. The option period did not expire until June 23, 1959.