Court Opinion

ID: 9660743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:19:52.644568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:21.708588
License: Public Domain

ASHWORTH, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion correctly states all principles to be observed in construing the two agreements in question and in reviewing the judgment of the trial court. However, the majority imposes a duty on the part of the optionor which is not specified by either agreement. As stated in the opinion, there was no legal binding contract of sale between the Appersons and appellants until the optionees accepted the offer to sell in accordance with the terms specified in the option and that such acceptance brought in existence a binding contract.
There was no duty imposed on the op-tionors under either agreement to advise the optionees that the option had terminated because of a default in the lease agreement. There is no duty to perform a useless act. Why should optionor be required to give notice of termination of the option when there is no way of knowing there will be an attempt to exercise the option? To carry the majority opinion to its logical conclusion, lessee could default after a tenancy of one year, be evicted from the property, and still have a right for four years to purchase the property because optionor gave no notice of termination of the option.
The judgment of the trial court is supported by the evidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed.