Steiner v. Thexton
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORENO, J.
Plaintiff Martin A. Steiner, and his partial assignee, intervener Siddiqui Family Partnership (hereafter collectively referred to as plaintiffs), seek specific performance of a sales agreement with defendant property owner Paul Thexton. Based on language granting Steiner “absolute and sole discretion” to terminate the transaction, the Court of Appeal construed the agreement as an option and further concluded the option was revocable because it was unsupported by consideration. The Court of Appeal also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that promissory estoppel required the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Carma Developers (California), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Crocker National Bank v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Mattei v. HopperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Northwest, Inc. v. GinsbergSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Perrin Davis v. Facebook, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Amanda Sateriale v. R J Reynolds Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Brown v. GrimesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.