Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEVENS, J.
Appellant the City of Alameda contends the trial court improperly held on summary judgment that a repurchase option in a written contract was not sufficiently definite to be enforceable under the statute of frauds. This appeal raises an issue as to whether extrinsic or parol evidence coming into existence after the execution of a written agreement may be considered in order to satisfy the statute of frauds, and render the agreement sufficiently certain to be enforceable. We conclude such evidence may be considered, and we therefore vacate the trial court’s orders, and remand…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1995
- Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Beverage v. Canton Placer Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sterling v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Sterling v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Estate of Haile Neil v. County of ColusaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- Martinez v. Vision Precision Holdings, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.