Defendant vendor challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County

 

Procedural Posture

Defendant vendor challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which held in favor of plaintiff vendee in a breach of contract action. The vendor challenged an order refusing a new trial.

 

 

 

 

 

 Nakase Law Firm is a business attorney

 

 

Overview

The vendor entered into separate contracts for the sale of two lots of land, which were similar in terms. The unpaid part of the purchase price was evidenced by 35 promissory notes to be paid over a period of time. The vendee tendered the total sum due under the contracts, and upon the vendor's refusal to accept the tender he brought the action, treating the refusal as a breach and asking for a rescission. The vendee charged and the trial court found that the vendor did not have title to the lots. The court reversed. The vendor promised to convey title 35 months after execution of the contract. The vendee's offer of a lump sum, under conditions at variance with the terms of the contract, was not a legal tender under the contract and could not operate to place the vendor in default. Nor would the fact that the vendor had no title to the lots afford any reason for the interposition of equity. Whatever the condition of the vendor's title, he had 35 months in which to perfect it. The vendor was in default only when the vendee performed his part of the contract and made demand for a title, which the vendor was unable to furnish.

 

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment and order and remanded the cause.