Kier v. Condrack
Utah Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceHenriod, Justice
I concur in the result.
It is obvious from the record that defendants had changed their minds between the time they signed the uniform real estate contract to sell part of the tract, and the time plaintiff exercised the option. It is significant that the option here was not quite the conventional one ordinarily used. It was incorporated in the contract that sold part of the property, and after considerable discussion wherein defendants appeared to be agreeable to a $23,500 sale for the other part of the property, crystallized then and there, except that the plaintiff felt and said at that time…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. JonesUtah Supreme Court · 1946
- Colmenero Canal Company v. BabersArizona Supreme Court · 1956
- McNeil v. McNeilUtah Supreme Court · 1922