Edgley v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 23 September 1976 |
| Citation | 276 Or. 213,554 P.2d 476 |
| Parties | Michael E. EDGLEY and Bettie Leah Edgley, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Walter N. JACKSON and Clara M. Jackson, husband and wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Milo W. Pope, Milton-Freewater, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants.
Robert W. Collins, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before O'CONNELL,* C.J., and McALLISTER, DENECKE,** TONGUE, and BRYSON, JJ.
This is a suit for specific performance of a land sale contract. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Edgley, are the vendees. The trial court held for the defendant vendors, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. Plaintiffs appeal.
The issues raised on appeal are whether the parties' agreement was sufficiently definite to be susceptible of specific enforcement and whether the agreement had been rescinded prior to the filing of this suit. We do not reach the question of the enforceability of the agreement, because we have concluded that the agreement, even if it was definite enough to support a decree of specific performance, was rescinded by the parties before this suit was filed.
The written agreement, which was prepared by the parties themselves, was signed on July 15, 1973 and acknowledged a part payment or deposit by the plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000. It also provided that the full amount of the down payment was to be $12,000, leaving $11,000 to be paid 'when contract papers are completed.' The writing does not say which of the parties was to be responsible for having the 'contract papers' prepared, nor does it specify a closing date.
On September 8, 1973 Mrs. Jackson attempted to return the $1,000 deposit to Mr. Edgley, who refused to accept it. The evidence is in conflict as to what had taken place in the interim. Mr. and Mrs. Edgley testified that they had been prepared to pay the $11,000 balance of the down payment at any time, that they understood that the Jacksons were to take care of having the contract prepared, and that they had informed the Jacksons that when the contract was ready they would pay the balance of the down payment. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson denied that plaintiffs had ever indicted they were ready to complete the down payment. They testified that they had asked several times when the $11,000 would be ready, and that each time the plaintiffs replied that it would take some time to get the money together. Mr. Jackson admitted that he had taken no steps toward having a contract prepared, nor had he attempted to obtain the consent of his vendor; he testified that he saw no point in taking such steps without knowing that the $11,000 would be forthcoming.
At any rate, on September 8 the Jacksons first attempted to rescind the transaction by returning the deposit. After that date they made several more attempts to do so. On September 17 they sent the money, in the form of a cashier's check, by certified mail to the Edgley home, but Mrs. Edgley refused to accept the letter. On September 24 the Jacksons' attorney mailed the same cashier's check to Mr. and Mrs. Edgley with a letter stating that the Jacksons did not consider themselves bound by the agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Edgley took the letter and check to their attorney, who sent the check back to the Jacksons' attorney, together with a letter inquiring why the Jacksons did not consider themselves bound. Jacksons' attorney replied on September 28:
'The reasons are varied why the earnest money was returned.
'First of all, the balance of the down payment was not paid as agreed and secondly we believe that the earnest money receipt is too vague to be enforceable.'
On October 30 Mr. and Mrs. Edgley, through their attorney, sent to the Jacksons' attorney a check for $11,000, together with a land sale contract for the Jacksons' signatures. On November 8 both the $11,000 check and the $1,000 cashier's check were returned with a cover letter stating that the Jacksons 'would not enter into the contract in the form presented.' On the back of the $1,000 check was written: 'Refund of Ernest (sic) money in full.' The check was held by the plaintiffs or their attorney until December 1, when it was endorsed by Mr. Edgley directly under the refund notation, and was deposited in the Edgleys' attorney's trust account.
Three days later plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance. That suit was dismissed without prejudice in March of 1974, and the present suit was filed on April 2.
Defendants' contention that the agreement was rescinded on September 8, when the Jacksons first tried to return the $1,000 deposit to Mr. Edgley, is clearly without merit. Even if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon, Inc. v. Ivory Ranch, Inc., 8-81-CIV-89
...it be received as full payment and the creditor accepts it. Kilander v. Blickle Co., 280 Or. 425, 571 P.2d 503 (1977); Edgley v. Jackson, 276 Or. 213, 554 P.2d 476 (1976). The actual, subjective intent of the creditor does not matter; if the creditor cashes a "full payment check," the credi......
-
Trailers Intl, LLC v. Mastercraft Tools Fla., Inc.
...whether expressed by words or manifested by conduct.'" Matter of Marriage of Baxter, 139 Or. App. 32, 37 (1996)(quoting Edgley v. Jackson, 276 Or. 213, 218 (1976)). To rescind a contract by conduct, however, the parties' conduct must demonstrate "mutual intent to no longer be bound by its t......
-
Kilander v. Blickle Co.
...Or. 79, 142 P. 353 (1914) and Pederson v. Portland, 144 Or. 437, 24 P.2d 1031 (1933) and reaffirmed most recently in Edgley v. Jackson, 276 Or. 213, 554 P.2d 476 (1976), that acceptance of a check tendered in full payment will discharge an unliquidated claim disputed in good faith. The prem......
-
Mobilife Corp. v. Delta Inv. Corp.
...an accord and satisfaction of the larger claim of the creditor, assuming the claim is unliquidated or disputed. Edgley v. Jackson, 276 Or. 213, 554 P.2d 476 (1976); 1 Am.Jur.2d Accord and Satisfaction Sec. 18; 1 C.J.S. Accord and Satisfaction § 33 at 524 et seq; Annot. 75 A.L.R. 905 et seq.......