Court Opinion

ID: 9656490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:49:18.514849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.751226
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(dissenting). I interpret the contract as one which is conditional upon the willingness of a specified third party to make a loan to the buyers upon the security of the property being purchased. The third party having been unwilling to make the loan and there being no suggestion of lack of good faith on the part of the buyers in making the application and seeking the loan, the buyers have no further obligation under the contract and their down payment should be returned.
I do not view the contract as ambiguous and do consider the testimony of one of the buyers as to what he intended is immaterial. Many offers to purchase are made which *585contain similar contingencies. Whatever may be the subjective intention of a buyer in any particular case, one can readily think of reasons why a buyer may make an offer contingent upon financing by a specific lending institution or through a particular type of loan. Examples of such reasons are: That the buyer will feel more confident of his own judgment of the price he is to pay if a lending institution is willing to make a loan; that the buyer would rather have the matter, in the event of default, in the hands of an established lending institution than in the hands of an individual who might be less able, if not less willing, to adjust matters reasonably.
The decision of the lower court, affirmed by the majority, treats the offer to purchase as if it offered $11,000 provided that the buyer could obtain a mortgage for $7,000, and gives no significance to the reference to the lender by name.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Wingert concurs in this dissent.