Court Opinion

ID: 9607372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:58:01.133914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:38.127500
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring in result).
I agree with the result for but one reason, which I consider determinative, and which I believe obviates the necessity of treating any other phase of this case. It was agreed that the sellers, at their option, could retain the amount advanced as liquidated damages if the buyers broke their promise. The buyers broke their promise and the sellers retained the amount advanced. In my opinion such retention constituted an exercise of the option and precluded the sellers from pursuing any other remedy. It is inconsistent for the sellers to insist on holding the buyers to the terms of the contract and at the same time retain the money that they agreed would be the measure of damages upon breach, if they retained it. Such inconsistency must be resolved against the sellers who not only furnished the printed contract, but who-had the power of election.