Legal Opinion
Patel v. Liebermensch
California Supreme Court
Decided December 22, 2008No. S156797PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
In this action for specific performance of a real estate option contract, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment for the plaintiff. Over a vigorous dissent, the court held that the contract was too uncertain to enforce because it lacked the essential terms of time and manner of payment. We reverse. It is settled that if a contract for the sale of real property specifies no time of payment, a reasonable time is allowed. The manner of payment is also a term that may be supplied by implication, and was not significantly uncertain in this case. The Court of Appeal majority…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Ellis v. MihelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- King v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Grafton v. CummingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Sutcliffe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, N.D. California · 2012
- McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- McClain v. Sav-On DrugsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia CompaniesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.