Burgess v. Rodom

FOX, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for breach of contract to purchase real property. The demurrer of the defendant-vendee, Jane E. Rodom, to plaintiff’s second amended

[73]

complaint was sustained. Plaintiff declined to amend further. Judgment was accordingly entered that plaintiff take nothing. It is from this judgment that plaintiff appeals.

The agreement upon which the seller predicates his right of action acknowledges receipt of $200 as a deposit on the purchase price of the property and provides that “The balance of the purchase price [$5,000.] is to be paid within

30

days from date hereof, as follows, to-wit:

Terms to be made as soon as new purchaser arranges for new mortgage now held by Santa Ynez Valley Bank to Burgess

(the seller).” The italicized portion of the agreement was inserted by handwriting in the blanks in a “deposit receipt” (California Real Estate Association Standard Form), which was signed by the plaintiff and defendant Jane E. Rodom but not signed by her husband, George.

Respondent contends that the agreement is lacking in essential elements and is fatally uncertain. Hence no cause of action is stated. Her position is well founded.

An action for damages for breach of contract for the purchase or sale of real property will not lie unless the writing contains the essential terms and material elements of such an agreement without recourse to parol evidence of the intention of the contracting parties.

(Salomon

v.

Cooper,

98 Cal.App.2d 521, 522-523 [220 P.2d 774];

Dillingham

v.

Dahlgren,

52 Cal.App. 322, 326-327 [198 P. 832].) The law does not provide a remedy for breach of an agreement to agree in the future, and the court may not speculate upon what the parties will agree.