Sorg v. Fred Weisz & Associates

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1970 No. Civ. 36433Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party's silence and inaction in response to a letter attempting to impose a contract for a license fee does not constitute acceptance of an offer, as there was no prior relationship or course of dealing between the parties.

Issues

Whether silence and inaction in response to an offer to grant a revocable license for a fee constitutes acceptance of a contract.
Whether a trespasser can be held liable for contract damages based on a unilateral offer sent by the property owner.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The tactic of attempting to create a contract by a letter stating a price, on the theory that silence and inaction would constitute an acceptance, has been consistently rejected by the courts.”

“Silence in the face of an offer is not an acceptance, unless there is a relationship between the parties or a previous course of dealing pursuant to which silence would be understood as acceptance.”

Opinion

FILES, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment awarding plaintiff an amount which the court concluded was due under a contract. The facts were stipulated and are set forth below.

G. M. Russell and Catherine S. Russell are the owners of a 40-acre parcel of land in Los Angeles, California, one acre of which is leased to Paul R. McClintock. On December 26 and 27, 1967, pursuant to a purported authorization obtained from McClintock, defendant dumped approximately 15 truckloads of asphalt, concrete, and other waste material on the Russell property. The authorization in fact related only to the McClintock leasehold, 200 feet distant from the closest portion of the deposited material.

Between December 26, 1967, and February 9, 1968, the Russells informed defendant that this dumping was improper and requested removal

[80]

of the waste material. On February 12 defendant received the following letter from the Russells’ attorneys:

“February 9, 1968

“Gentlemen:

“On or about December 26-27, 1967 you and your company unlawfully dumped an estimated 200-300 tons of waste and rubbish on our client’s land near 135th Street and South Broadway, Los Angeles, California.

“Repeated demands made on you to remove this waste and rubbish from said land have been ignored. Demand is again made on you to immediately remove this waste and rubbish from said land.

“Your conduct constitutes an unlawful trespass and conversion and our client will look to you for all damages flowing therefrom. Compensation for such trespass at the rate of $150.00 per day is demanded by return remittance.

“Our client is willing to grant to you a revocable license to continue your storing this waste and rubbish and use of the land to the extent the same is presently being used. This revocable license is contingent upon the payment to our client of the sum of $150.00 per day for each day such use continues. Said sums are to be payable daily and any unpaid sums are to bear interest at full legal rate plus reasonable attorneys fees and all costs of collection whether or not an action that proceeds to judgment is brought.

Sorg v. Fred Weisz & Associates

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. V. Holder, Inc.

AI Brief