Martin v. Baird

California Court of Appeal Apr 16, 1954 No. Civ. 4679Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the exchange of letters between the parties constituted a sufficient written memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds and support a decree of specific performance.

Issues

Whether the written correspondence between the parties constituted a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds for the sale of real property.
Whether the agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable through specific performance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A memorandum of the agreement is sufficient, and this may be found in one paper or in several documents, including an exchange of letters which are accepted and acted upon by the parties.”

“Measured by any reasonable standard, there is here mutual assent to a contract which is sufficiently certain so that the court was within its power in decreeing specific performance.”

[599]

GRIFFIN, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to compel specific performance of an alleged agreement of defendant to sell 10 acres of land in Kern County. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to show a written agreement subject to specific performance.

In July, 1951, defendant, who resided in Los Angeles, wrote a real estate agent, Barker, in Bakersfield, about the possible sale of her property, and suggested a selling price of $10,000. Barker received an offer of $8,000 from plaintiffs, through another agent. This offer was reduced to writing on a standard real estate association form for a deposit receipt. It was signed by the plaintiffs. It acknowledged the receipt of $200 deposit by the agent on September 4, 1951, with an offer of $8,000, payable $2,000 down, and the balance at $1,000 or more per year at 6 per cent. July 1st was to be the date of each year’s payment. This offer was forwarded to defendant by her agent Barker, with a letter signed by him, stating:

“Here is an offer offered by a client — thru a fellow broker . . . In brief the offer is — $2,000 cash down — and $1,000 every year—due on July 1st starting 1952 — until paid for — interest at 6%. Buyer must have the right to pay up in full at any time. Full purchase price $8,000. I am enclosing the original offer—in ease you wish to accept it. — Then of course — sign the offer so that I can open escrow — and please enclose all necessary papers — If the offer is not acceptable — please state any counter offer. The buyer understands the ground is leased until — March 1st 1952.

‘ ‘ Sincerely

“Jack Barker

[Note] “The Buyers must have the privilege of building a home on the property — Prior to possession March — 5—-In other words — it would take 5 or 6 months to build a home. Of course if they destroyed a few dollars of crop — they would reimburse Lessee.

“J. B.”

Soon after the letter was mailed, Barker called defendant on the phone and informed her of the offer, as mailed, and that he thought the offer could be raised $500, and if she was not satisfied with the $8,000 offer and if she stated she would accept $8,500, he thought the purchaser would give that amount. Soon after defendant received the offer and letter of transmittal she wrote a letter addressed to Barker reading:

Martin v. Baird

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief