Legal Opinion

Kottler v. Martin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 14, 1955No. 389PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

The essence of the defendants’ argument is tbis: the option must be construed strictly in favor of the makers, and since the plaintiff stipulated that the jury should answer the issue: “Has the plaintiff ever offered to the defendants in cash or in certified checks the purchase price specified in the option?”: “No,” the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance, because tender of the purchase price was essential.

The general rule governing the question presented for decision is thus stated in 55 Am. Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, Sec. 41: “Where the option by its express terms requires…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cates v. McNeilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Winders v. . KenanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  3. Trogden v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  4. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. FrazelleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Lea v. . BridgemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Shull v. SextonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
  3. Warner v. W & O, INCORPORATEDSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Loose v. BrubacherSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  5. Burkhead v. FarlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API