Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Gentile

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 4, 1992No. B057235PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

In this case we are asked to interpret a clause requiring an option to be exercised “within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration” of the option period. Appellant argues this language requires the option to be exercised “no later than” 30 days before the option period expires. We conclude this language instead allows the option to be exercised during the 30-day period immediately preceding the expiration of the option. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment which enforced an option exercised seven days before the option period expired.

Facts and Proceedings Below

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Harmon v. HopkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Simons v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  3. Bonney v. PettyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Estate of HalmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Riverside Fence Co. v. NovakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wright v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. Daniel Lucey v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
  3. Martin-Bragg v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. TNT Amusements, Inc. v. BFC Enterprises, Inc. and BNS&C, LLCMissouri Court of Appeals · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API