Legal Opinion · Dissent

Borchert v. Hecla Mining Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1985No. 15664Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

I

On the authority of two ancient Idaho cases today’s plurality holds that a vendor need not offer a vendee the opportunity to cure a default and'sustains Hecla Mining in depriving the widow Borchert of what may be her one meager asset. In so doing, the plurality of a necessity ignores (1) the fact that Hecla Mining by a course of conduct indulged her defaults; and, (2) time-honored Idaho case law which firmly established that such a course of conduct waives the vendor’s right to declare forfeiture without first giving a reasonable notice of default to the vendee, which notice provides an…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Cheney v. Palos Verdes Investment Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Graves v. CupicIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Duthie v. Lewiston Gun ClubIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Stockmen's Supply Co. v. JenneIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Sullivan v. BurcawIdaho Supreme Court · 1922

7 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