Court Opinion

ID: 9632295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:08:49.208673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:44.377466
License: Public Domain

LEESON, J.,
dissenting.
This case involves an oral contract entered into while plaintiffs agent was standing in a grass seed field with defendant. Defendant’s lease entitled him to remain on the 80-acre parcel until December 31, 1989. Plaintiff wanted to take possession of the entire 130 acres before December 31. Her agent, therefore, promised to refund prorated rent for any unused portion of the lease when defendant quit the land upon completion of harvest. The phrase “upon completion of harvest” in their agreement referred only to when defendant was to release the land, not what was to be released. Similarly, no reasonable person could find that the parties intended their oral agreement to create a rigid time table under which defendant would become a hold-over tenant and a trespasser within 24 hours of gathering the last of his crop. Any claim plaintiff may have against defendant does not derive from the early release agreement. The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, I dissent.