Court Opinion

ID: 9676764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:32:35.717421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:51.039408
License: Public Domain

HAMITER, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I am unable to agree with the interpretation placed by the majority on the reciprocal clauses of the contract relating to a failure by either party to comply with his agreement. Thereunder, each of the parties, on the failure of the other, may resort to specific performance; or, the vendor has the right to declare the deposit forfeited, wheréas the vendee may demand the return of double the deposit.
In keeping with the decision in Johnson v. Johnson, 213 La. 1092, 36 So.2d 396, which I am convinced is sound and correct, I am of the opinion that the mentioned reciprocal clauses contemplate only the occurrence of an arbitrary failure or refusal for the effectuating of the penal provisions thereof. Surely the vendee would not even consider resorting to a specific performance action (he has the right and option of so doing under the clauses) if the failure of compliance is due wholly to an incurable defective title of the vendor.
Moreover, the interpretation decided upon by the majority- would seem to result in an anomalous situation tn.\which both the vendor and vendee must suffer the respective penalties stipulated. Since the contract does not require the furnishing of a merchantable title, and there has been a failure of compliance on the part of both parties by reason of the title’s defectiveness, the vendee is entitled to the return of double the .deposit and also the vendor has the right to retain the deposit.
The cases of Nelson v. Holden, 219 La. 37, 52 So.2d 240 and Samuelson v. Bosk, 219 La. 477, 53 So.2d 239, as I appreciate them, are distinguishable on the facts from Johnson v. Johnson, supra.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent as to the award of double the amount of the deposit. Otherwise, I concur in the decree.