Legal Opinion · Dissent

Blank v. Borden

California Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1974No. L.A. 30159Published

1Dissent

I dissent. The majority never reach the question whether the "commission-on-withdrawal" clause in the instant case was an invalid penalty clause or an enforceable liquidated damages clause. (See Civ. Code, §§ 1670, 1671.) Instead, the majority neatly sidestep this issue by labelling the brokerage contract as one contemplating an "alternative performance" by the owner in the event he exercises his "true option" to withdraw the property from sale. To the contrary, the issue in this case cannot be avoided by the facile use of labels — otherwise any illegal penalty could be disguised as a "true…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Garrett v. Coast & Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Better Food Markets, Inc. v. American District Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Baumgartner v. MeekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Maze v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Robert Marsh Co., Inc. v. TremperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930

3 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