Court Opinion

ID: 9669399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:55:03.409305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.223918
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed June 25, 1965.
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). On July 13, 1962, Hope Acres, Inc., through' Lesperance, its president, *300atelegrammed respondent Raymond Harris to arrange a meeting to settle their accounts and for “the exercising of option as per our contract ... , if option is to be exercised.” In the original opinion, this court determined that by this wire Hope Acres had “attempted ... to exercise the option” and directed the trial court, on remand, to “reinstate the option.” It is clear that appellant tried to get negotiations on the option started. However, respondents contend, for the first time on this rehearing, that this telegram was not an effectual exercise of the option, and that, in any event, the option is void for lack of definiteness.
Generally, this court will not consider an argument raised for the first time on rehearing.1 However, since the case is being remanded on the matter of sidewalks and in the interests of justice, for further proceedings on the option, because important questions are raised as to the validity of the option, and because there is doubt as to whether the sending of the telegram was a sufficient exercise of the option, the trial court on remand should consider these additional questions: First, was the option valid? Second, assuming the option was valid, was the option exercised by the telegram of July 13th? Third, assuming that the option was valid, but was not exercised, should appellant nonetheless be given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the option at this time, because the subsequent conduct of the respondents in repudiating the contract made it impossible for appellant to follow up the telegram and exercise the option in accordance with formal legal standards ?
No other matters raised on the motion for rehearing require comment. Motion denied without costs.

 Uren v. Purity Dairy Co. (1948), 252 Wis. 446, 32 N. W. (2d) 615, 33 N. W. (2d) 213.