Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Wolcott v. Booth

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1980No. 13259Published

1Concurrence

BISTLINE, Justice,

specially concurring.

Although I agree with the decision to affirm the district court, I must add my own thoughts to dispel any inference from the Court’s summary disposition that earnest money agreements are in toto unenforceable in Idaho. The law does not favor the destruction of contracts because of uncertainty, but rather will, if feasible, construe agreements so as to effectuate the reasonable intentions of the parties. Seal v. Polehn, 284 Or. 259, 586 P.2d 345, 347 (1978); Howard v. Thomas, 270 Or. 6, 526 P.2d 552, 554 (1974); 11 Williston on Contracts § 1424 (3d ed.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Anderson v. WhippleIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Matheson v. HarrisIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Luke v. ConradIdaho Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Howard v. ThomasOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Curzon v. Wells Cargo, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1963

9 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