Court Opinion

ID: 9677064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:42:37.147647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:53.448239
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice (dissenting). I originally voted to reverse this case because of the fact that, in my opinion, no proper tender of the $21,000.00 was made to Loveless by Diehl, or anyone in the latter’s behalf. However, with the same feeling as that expressed in the present majority opinion (the belief that we were achieving substantial justice), I joined in the original opinion handed down by this court. It is true that the substitution of damages for specific performance was not argued in the original briefs; however, the complaint filed by appellees, after asking for specific performance, prays, in the alternative, for damages. I am still of the view that no proper tender was made and I think this true even under the discussion by Williston, quoted by the majority. A portion of that quotation reads as follows: “ ‘As the courts have said “the word ‘tender,’ as used in connection with such a transaction, does not mean the same thing as when used with reference to the offer to pay money where it is absolutely due, but only a readiness and willingness to perform in case of the concurrent performance by the other party, with present ability to do so,1 and notice to the other party of such readiness.” ’ ” I cannot ascertain from the record that either Diehl or Dr. Hart had the “present ability” to make the payment of $21,000.00. In fact, there is no contention that Diehl was able to make the payment himself, but he testified, as stated by the majority, that “he had a man who was ready to pay for the property. ’ ’ This, of course, ivas a reference to Dr. Hart. Let us, therefore, examine the record for the purpose of determining Hart’s ability to pay that amount. Dr. Hart first testified that he could have raised the money “in a matter of 48 hours.” But he then became more specific in his testimony as follows: “You were talking about whether I had the money. I had some money available. I had some property both in Kansas and in Arkansas and I was wanting to use this property in Arkansas as collateral and had hoped to borrow enough money locally with this collateral, which was a three hundred acre farm in Conway County, to purchase the lands here locally without having to jeopardize the business venture in Kansas. I would rather have had that locally. I had talked to the bank, The First State Bank, Mr. Tom Wilson and he had approved a loan of $10,000.00 to me if I needed it and I asked several people. I had talked with Mr. Atchison about it. I had done some banking with both banks and I talked to him about it to see what he thought and, of course, we discussed the value of the real estate, whether it was worth so much money. Then, I went over to see Mr. Ligón. I’ve had some experience with Federal Land Bank in Kansas and familiar, more or less, with their interest rates and I was asking Mr. Jimmy Ligón about the possibility if they would like to finance it and he told me that it might be valuable for me to contact Mr. Loveless and talk with him; that he was of the opinion that Mr. Loveless, possibly, would carry part of the note;2 that he might be interested in carrying part of the note for me to purchase the property from Mr. Diehl and that was the reason that I went to see Mr. Loveless.” Further, from Dr. Hart’s testimony: “Q. All right. Now, have you at all times since then been ready, willing and able to go on and purchase it if — at the price you agreed on then? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. You are willing and able now? A. Yes, sir. Q. Within a reasonable time, perhaps a very feiv days 3 you can raise the money and pay Mr. Diehl so he can pay Mr. Loveless in cash? A, That’s correct. Yes, sir.” The transcript reflects the following testimony by Mrs. M. Coburn, a real estate broker, with whom the property had been listed for sale: “Q. Now, did you ever have any conversation with Dr. Hart that was here on the stand about the purchase of the place? A. Yes. Dr. Hart came to my office with —. It was along about Thanksgiving and they wanted to know if the place was listed and I told them we had it listed and he said he would like to buy the place and I thought we were going to perhaps negotiate a deal for it, but he mentioned that he had to —. I mentioned that the way it was set up, it would have to be all cash and he said he could raise the all cash, but he’d have to sell some property or malee arrangements on other property4 and that he was going back to Kansas and that he would see us a little later. Well, I tried repeatedly to call him on the phone and I never could get him and I didn’t know what happened to him and I heard later that he was trying to buy it through Speaker, so I don’t know if that was a true rumor or not.” Dr. Hart denied the pertinent statements of this particular conversation, but, to me, his own testimony is sufficient to establish that he did not have $21,000.00 in cash ready for payment to Loveless before December 15, 1959. Under the contract, Diehl had until that date to exercise his option. Loveless testified that Dr. Hart talked with him on December 12 or 13 and discussed buying the place by paying $7,000.00 down, and the balance on terms, but no agreement was reached. Hart did not again talk with Loveless about purchasing the property until after the lease agreement (and option) had expired. Dr. Hart likewise testified that he did not talk with Loveless the second time until December 16. The majority state, “The purchasers, according to the great weight of the evidence, expended some $5,000 or more, in money or in labor, in improving the property. Apparently the land in its improved state is worth more than the contract price, for otherwise the sellers would hardly be so strenuously resisting this suit for enforcement of the agreement. To deny specific performance, and to award instead an amount of damages far below the buyers’ expenditures in improving the property, would result in the sellers’ being unjustly enriched for their culpable refusal to carry out their promise.” I should like to point out that Diehl, entirely voluntarily, wanted to sell this property to Dr. Hart for $22,-000.00, which means, according to the majority statement just quoted, that he would lose $4,000.00 by making the sale. In other words, since he was willing to lose $4,000.00 (if he expended $5,000.00 on the place) there certainly was no reason for this court to go beyond the figure that he was willing to accept himself. Diehl was willing to accept $1,000 more than his purchase price, which was the amount of damages we awarded him. Nor can I see that specific performance is called for either legally or equitably, when the sole beneficiary of this holding by the court will be Dr. Hart, a rank outsider — who never had a contract — who was not a party to the litigation — who suffered no loss — and who, according to my view, never did tender to Loveless the $21,000.00 in cash. I, therefore, respectfully dissent to the granting of the rehearing.   Emphasis supplied.    Emphasis supplied.    Emphasis supplied.    Emphasis supplied.