Court Opinion

ID: 9740416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:35:06.402185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.200208
License: Public Domain

SAND, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result and with a major portion of the opinion. I agree that Wes-sels technically did not comply with the option. The noncompliance, however, is more the result of the option itself in not specifying how the detailed requirements of when and how certain essential matters should be performed.
As an example, the option failed to specify the procedure to be used in determining the “fair market value.” The option provides for the selection of three disinterested persons, but nothing is said with reference to who will have the responsibility of asking the attorney to appoint the appraisers, also were the appraisers to meet and act jointly or were the appraisers to reach one price, or, if a disagreement existed among the appraisers, was the average to be used in determining the price; or was some other method to be employed for this purpose. The option is not clear on this.
In short, Wessels could not satisfy the option agreement because the option agreement was inadequate in some essential matters. How could Wessels tender a contract for deed or make a down payment or offer *834full payment without knowing the “fair market value”? Under this setup, no matter what offer Wessels would make it could be rejected and each subsequent offer could be rejected, ad infinitum.
I, therefore, agree that the option agreement was not complied with, but I also conclude it could not be complied with. The option agreement was materially defective to the extent that it was legally defective and inadequate. As a result Wessels should be entitled to have the option payments returned with interest.