Court Opinion

ID: 9694822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:56:13.16473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:05.644017
License: Public Domain

HAMITER, Justice
(dissenting).
In the majority opinion it is stated that Creole’s failure to pay or acquire the Pines’ mortgage note by October 21, 1952 prevented Zemurray’s obligation to sell from coming into existence. To me this statement seems incorrect. Such obligation to sell came into existence May 9, 1952 when Zemurray, for a valid and sufficient consideration paid to him, granted to Creole until May 9,- 1954 the option to purchase.
Of course, clause 6 of the contract required as a condition precedent to the exercise of the option that Creole pay or acquire the mentioned mortgage note by a certain date, it specifically providing that “this option will terminate unless said acquisition or payment has been made on or before October 21, 1952.” But this imposed condition, in my opinion, was effectively waived by Zemurray when, on April 8, 1954 and prior to the option’s expiration date of May 9, 1954, he unqualifiedly accepted from Creole the entire balance due on the Pines’ mortgage note ($64,654.62 plus attorneys’ fees of $3,228.23). And having so received and thereafter retained such benefits' Zemurray, I think, is estopped to repudiate his obligation under the granted option.
No one ought to enrich himself at the expense of another. Revised Civil Code Article 1965. Neither law, equity, nor good conscience will allow one to claim the benefits and at the same time escape the obligations of an undertaking. Sherer-Gillett Co. v. Bennett, 153 La. 304, 95 So. 777. See also Louisiana v. McIlhenny, 201 La. 78, 9 So.2d 467 (and numerous authorities therein cited).
I respectfully dissent.