Hailpern v. Dryden, 20383
| Decision Date | 24 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20383,20383 |
| Citation | 389 P.2d 590,154 Colo. 231 |
| Parties | Stanley HAILPERN, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. Robert DRYDEN and Nancy Marie Dryden, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Girsh & Rottman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Anthony V. Zarlengo, Denver, for defendants in error.
Pursuant to written contract J. Robert Dryden and his wife, Nancy Marie Dryden, on April 22, 1960 purchased a dry cleaning establishment known as Stanley's Cleaners from Stanley Hailpern for $13,500, the Drydens making a down payment of $3,500 and executing a promissory note for the balance due under the contract.
On May 2, 1961 the Drydens brought an action against Hailpern seeking to rescind the aforementioned contract on the ground that 'there was a mutual mistake between the parties', the Drydens offering to return the dry cleaning business to Hailpern and seeking return of all monies paid by them to Hailpern under the contract.
In his answer Hailpern denied any 'mutual mistake' and interposed a counterclaim for the balance then due on the promissory note.
Upon trial the court held that 'the parties were mutually mistaken as to when a proposed shopping center would be available' and accordingly entered judgment cancelling the purchase and sales contract, dismissing the aforementioned counterclaim and ordering that the Drydens have judgment against Hailpern for $6305. By writ of error Hailpern seeks reversal of the judgment thus entered.
Since about 1952 Hailpern had been operating a dry cleaning business at 324 South Knox Court in Denver and the Drydens in response to a newspaper advertisement first contacted Hailpern in early April 1960 regarding the possible purchase by them of this business. As of this time Hailpern was the lessee of space in a proposed shopping center to be constructed some two to three miles from the Knox Court location and for which Hailpern had paid some $600 as advance rental. Hailpern advised the Drydens that he held the aforementioned lease and he and Robert Dryden viewed the site of the proposed shopping center, which was then only vacant land. Robert Dryden thereafter spent several weeks observing and generally sizing up this dry cleaning business and on April 22, 1960 the parties entered into the written contract calling for the purchase and sale thereof.
By the terms of this contract it was agreed 'that purchasers shall buy from seller and seller shall sell to purchasers the fixtures and equipment, a list of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, the supplies on hand, the goodwill and trade name of the business heretofore mentioned [cleaning establishment owned and operated by seller known as Stanley's Cleaners located at 324 South Knox Court, Denver, Colorado], at and for a total purchase price of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars'.
The only reference in the contract to the lease then held by Hailpern in the unbuilt shopping center was as follows:
Later on that same date, i. e. April 22, 1960, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement which related exclusively to Hailpern's lease in the not yet constructed shopping center. This supplemental agreement provided, among other things, as follows:
'In the event consent of the landlord to the assignment herein mentioned is not obtained within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, purchasers shall have the option of returning to seller the assets purchased hereunder and seller shall return the purchasers the amounts paid to seller * * *.'
The Drydens went into possession of Stanley's Cleaners on April 22, 1960 and shortly thereafter Hailpern, having secured the written consent of the lessor to the proposed assignment of the lease to the Drydens, then proceeded to assign the same to the Drydens and in turn was reimbursed by the Drydens for advance rentals in the amount of $600.
The present controversy stems from the fact that the proposed Sheridan Southwest Center never came into being. The evidence is undisputed that as of April 22, 1960 both the Drydens and Hailpern honestly believed that the shopping center was going to be constructed, though all knew that as of that time ground had not even been broken.
In about August 1960 the Drydens for the first time sought out the promoter of the proposed center to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McBride
...exception from the doctrine of mutual mistake for uncertainty is adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court in Halpern v. Dryden, 154 Colo. 231 (1964), 389 P.2d 590 (Colo.1964): Where an alleged mistake of fact is but a contingency which the parties foresaw was liable to arise from their want of......
-
Snyder v. Monroe Twp. Trustees
...As one jurisdiction has noted, "[t]here can be no mutual mistake as to a fact to come into being in the future." Hailpern v. Dryden (1964), 154 Colo. 231, 236, 389 P.2d 590, 593. In Hailpern, the court refused to rescind a contract for the purchase of a dry cleaning establishment despite th......
-
Lenawee County Bd. of Health v. Messerly, Docket No. 65513
...a prediction as to a future occurrence or non-occurrence. Henry v. Thomas, 241 Ga. 360, 245 S.E.2d 646 (1978); Hailpern v. Dryden, 154 Colo. 231, 389 P.2d 590 (1964). But see Denton v. Utley, 350 Mich. 332, 86 N.W.2d 537 The Court of Appeals concluded, after a de novo review of the record, ......
-
City of Raton v. Ark. River Power Auth.
...be “truly one of an existing fact, and one not relating to a misapprehension as to what the future might bring.” Hailpern v. Dryden, 154 Colo. 231, 389 P.2d 590, 593 (1964). The Supreme Court of Colorado also stated: “The Restatement of the Law of Contracts, § 500 defines ‘mistake’, as that......