Court Opinion

ID: 9563927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:50:22.944644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.734459
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Justice
(dissenting).
Upon consideration of defendants’ petition for rehearing, and supporting brief, this court requested plaintiff to reply and particularly to cover the issue as to whether finding No. IX is supported by the evidence. Both parties filed additional briefs. Upon further consideration of the issues I am of the opinion the petition should be granted.
The purchase and sale contract between the parties was indefinite and uncertain in that it did not specify the terms and conditions upon which the plaintiff could sell the lots. The escrow agreement which was executed by both parties was likewise uncertain, since it did not provide such terms and conditions, nor the amount of the payment or payments upon receipt of which the escrow holder would be authorized to deliver a deed or deeds. The escrow agreement in that respect merely referred to the real estate contract. Thus, the bank was unable to accept the responsibility of escrow holder.
However, the questions before the trial court were whether the failure of the parties to execute an escrow agreement satisfactory to the bank prevented the plaintiff from performing its contract; and, if so, whether the failure to complete the escrow was the fault of, or a breach of the contract on the part of, the defendants.
Plaintiff’s officers and agents testified they had several prospects for the sale of lots which they were unable to make because of the bank’s refusal to act. However, they, with one exception, all testified that no tender of any money for the purchase of any lot or lots was ever made either to the bank or to the defendants. The one exception was the witness Hall, a director and president of the plaintiff corporation, who testified that he had sold a lot to one Scheele; that a receipt and purchase agreement had been entered into. This agreement recites a sale price of $2700, a down payment of $25, $175 due a week later, and the balance in monthly payments of $210. Hall testified he took this agreement to the bank and proposed to deliver to the bank the money received on it, and requested the delivery of the deed to the lot sold. This the bank refused to do.
The contract between the parties provided that no lot may be sold for less than $2000, which was construed by defendant to require a payment of not less than that amount to the bank on the sale of any one lot, at least until the sum of $6000 had been paid on the contract. A contrary construction was not contended for, and it would be *167unreasonable to construe the contract as authorizing the delivery of title to a lot valued at $2000 for a down payment of $25 or $200. Thus, there was no bona fide tender of performance on the part of plaintiff.
Defendants had granted two extensions of time to the plaintiff, and at all times stood ready and willing to perform and to accept performance. The trial court’s finding No. IX is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to support a contrary finding merely creates a conflict.
The plaintiff has contended throughout that the failure to complete the escrow to the satisfaction of the bank was the fault of defendants. The fact is, the fault was no more that of defendants than of plaintiff. The escrow agreement was a bilateral contract signed by both parties. The duties and authority of the bank could not be dictated by either party alone. To make certain that which the land contract left uncertain, would necessitate a modification of, or supplement to, that contract, and would require the concurrence and agreement of both parties. The attitude of plaintiff as to its obligation in this regard is expressed in the testimony of its president, Mr. Hall:
“Q In any event, at no time did you attempt to get Mr. Infanger and Mr. Caldwell to go to the bank with them and get this matter straightened out?
“A We called them. I figured it was their responsibility to go and straighten it out after we notified them.”