Richards v. Flower

SHOEMAKER, J.

Plaintiffs Keith and Harriet Richards, husband and wife, appeal from a judgment denying them specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of certain real property.

The facts are without dispute. Plaintiff Harriet Richards, on January 15, 1959, wrote the defendant Flowers (sued herein as Elisha Beauregard Flower), as follows:

“We would be interested in buying your lot on Gravatt Drive in Oakland, California, if we can deal with you directly and not through a realtor.

“If you are interested, please advise us by return mail the cash price you would expect to receive.”

On January 19, 1959, Flowers replied:

‘1 Thank you for your inquiry regarding my lot on Gravatt Drive.

“As long as your offer would be in cash I see no reason

[235]

why we could not deal directly on this matter. When I bought the lot several years ago there was a title search and that is clear. Also a contour survey o£ the property was made at that time.

“Considering what I paid for the lot, and the taxes which I have paid I expect to receive $4,500.00 for this property. Please let me know what you decide. ’ ’

On January 25, 1959, Mrs. Richards sent the following telegram to Flowers: ' ‘ Have agreed to buy your lot on your terms will handle transactions through local title company who will contact you would greatly appreciate your sending us a copy of the contour map you referred to in your letter as we are desirous of building at once. ...”

On February 5, 1959, after these exchanges, defendant entered into an agreement to sell the property to the interveners Sutton through the real estate brokerage firm of MasonMcDuffie Company. Plaintiffs were thereafter advised of the Sutton transaction, but claiming they had a valid contract of sale, called upon defendant to deposit his deed. He refused, denying any contract for the sale of the property with them, and the Richards shortly thereafter commenced this action. The Suttons intervened, asking specific performance of their contract, and after court trial judgment was entered in favor of defendant Flowers with respect to plaintiffs’ claim, and for interveners on their demand for specific performance. In arriving at its conclusion, the trial court interpreted the documents above quoted without the aid of any extrinsic evidence and found that defendant had made plaintiffs an offer capable of acceptance, but that plaintiffs’ telegram of acceptance did not comply with the California statute of frauds, since plaintiffs had not given the telegraph company written authorization to send the message. The court also found that there was a valid contract between defendant and interveners and that the interveners had not been damaged by defendant’s inability to convey marketable title. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment thereafter entered in accordance with said findings.