Bell v. Minor

California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 1948 No. Civ. 13789Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that lessees were not required to pay the difference between the original lease rental and the O.P.A.-reduced rental as a condition of exercising an option to purchase, and that the lessors waived any strict time requirement for payment.

Issues

Whether lessees must pay the difference between the contract rent and the O.P.A.-fixed rent to exercise an option to purchase.
Whether the lessees' payment of the purchase price was timely under the option agreement.
Whether the trial court properly excluded testimony regarding a party's undisclosed intent in entering the contract.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The lessees fully performed their rental agreement as modified by the O.P.A. and the contract was made with the possibility of such modification by the O.P.A. as one of its terms implied in law.”

“We think that a waiver sufficiently appears.”

“A contract cannot be varied by the undisclosed intention of one of the parties.”

DOOLING, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of specific performance. By a lease dated September 5, 1945, the appellants Minor as lessors rented to respondents Bell as lessees a dwelling house, excluding a basement apartment, for one year at $90 per month. The lease contained the following provisions giving respondents an option to purchase the property.

“Thirty days before termination of this lease an option is hereby given lessees by lessors to purchase said premises for $8,750 cash. If.option is not taken up during said 30 days, lessors are privileged to sell property elsewhere. . . . Lessees agree that notice in writing will be given lessors thirty days before termination of this lease stating lessees intention regarding option.”

In January, 1946, the Office of Price Administration fixed the maximum rental for this property at $55 per month and thereafter lessees paid only this amount. On July 27, 1946, by writing delivered to appellants respondents accepted the option to purchase at the price of $8,750. Appellants objected on the ground that the balance of unpaid rental provided for in the lease, amounting to $245, should also be paid and respondents expressed a willingness to pay the $245 if an icebox and a stove belonging to appellants were left for their use until they could replace them. Respondents opened an escrow with a title company on August 6, 1946, and on August 26, 1946, appellants deposited in escrow a deed of the property to respondents with the title company. There were certain restrictions on the use of the property of record and respondents testified that while they were giving consideration to these restrictions they delayed depositing the purchase price in the escrow. In the meantime appellants on September 5, 1946, inquired of respondents why the purchase price had not been deposited and on the same day, or on September 11 (the testimony on that matter being in

[881]

conflict) removed the stove and icebox. On September 11, 1946, appellants notified the title company to return their deed to them and on September 12, respondents deposited $8,750 as the purchase price with the title company and filed a written waiver of the restrictions of record.

The primary claim of appellants is that as a condition to the exercise of the option to purchase respondents were bound to pay the difference between the $90 rental provided in the lease and the $55 rental fixed by the O.P.A.

Bell v. Minor

AI Brief

DOOLING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief