Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fullington v. M. Penn Phillips Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1964Published

1DissentGoodwin, J.

Although conceding the speculative nature of the damages sought by the option holder, the majority holds that the speculative nature of the damages is insufficient reason to deny them. There are several reasons why I cannot agree.

The majority assumes that the option holder has been deprived of the right to wait until the end of the option period to make up his mind whether or not to exercise the option. In the case at bar, this assumption is unwarranted.

If all of the plaintiff’s evidence is credible, the lessor-optionor may have committed an anticipatory *327breach of the lease agreement.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thompson v. CoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  2. Bado Realty Co. v. OetjenNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Holmes v. HarrisNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
  4. Boyd v. De LanceyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  5. Gwaltney v. Pioneer Trust CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API