San Pedro Salt Co. v. Hauser Packing Co. (1910) · DecisionDepot

San Pedro Salt Co. v. Hauser Packing Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 1910 No. Civ. No. 710.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an option to renew a contract must be exercised before the contract expires, as the right to renew ceases once the contract is no longer in effect.

Issues

Whether an option to renew a contract without a specified time limit can be exercised after the contract has expired.
Whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings during cross-examination.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The right to renew, like other rights, must necessarily cease when there is no longer a contract under and by virtue of which to claim the privilege.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, denying a new trial. N. P. Conrey, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

On August 26, 1905, plaintiff contracted in writing to deliver to defendant during the ensuing year two hundred tons of salt at the price of $5 per ton as therein stipulated. The contract contained a provision to the effect that the defendant should have the option to renew the agreement for a second year, but failed to specify the time within which defendant should elect to renew the agreement. By its terms the contract expired on August 27, 1906. Within the year following such expiration plaintiff delivered to defendant a certain amount of salt alleged to be of the reasonable market value of $2,525.50 and for the recovery of which, less payments made, this suit was instituted. Defendant claims that, pursuant to the provisions of the agreement according such right, it renewed the contract under which it was entitled to the salt so delivered at the price' specified therein".

The court found there was no renewal of the contract, and .gave judgment against defendant for the value of the salt. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and it appeals from the order denying the same.

The evidence clearly tends to prove that defendant did not elect to renew the contract prior to its expiration on August 27, 1906. Appellant contends, however, that as the contract fixed no time when it should exercise its option to renew, it had a reasonable time after the expiration thereof within which to act, and that it did, by letter, within thirty days after its expiration, notify plaintiff of its election to renew the contract. Where a contract provides for its renewal at the election of one party thereto without fixing the time when such option shall be exercised, the time for giving- notice of

[3]

such renewal cannot be extended beyond the date of the expiration of the contract. The right to renew, like other rights, must necessarily cease when there is no longer a contract under and by virtue of which to claim the privilege.

(Shamp

White,

106 Cal. 220, [39 Pac.

537]; Renoud

San Pedro Salt Co. v. Hauser Packing Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief