Matheson v. Harris, 11728
| Decision Date | 13 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11728,11728 |
| Parties | Riley MATHESON and Muriel Matheson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Gary S. HARRIS and Frank D. Maughan, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Herman E. Bedke, Burley, for appellants.
Thomas H. Church, Burley, for respondents.
This appeal is taken from the summary judgment granted respondents Matheson pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56. The primary issue before the district court was whether an earnest money agreement for the sale of land would support the alleged buyers' demand for either specific performance or damages upon sellers' refusal to convey. The lower court held that the agreement in question was too ambiguous to support any remedy sought by the counterclaim of appellants Harris and Maughan.
The agreement in question is ambiguous as to the description of the land in question, the assumption of a non-existent outstanding mortgage, and the method of acceptance. This Court held in Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974) that ambiguous earnest money agreements will not support an award of specific performance or damages. A contract does not exist if any portion of the proposed terms is unsettled. C. H. Leavell and Co. v. Grafe and Associates, Inc., 90 Idaho 502, 414 P.2d 873 (1966). Since several terms of the document are clearly ambiguous, the agreement confers no rights in appellants.
We affirm the judgment of the district court that appellants take nothing by their action.
Costs to respondents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Rehn
...will not support an award of specific performance or damages. Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974), Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 (1975). The description of the land as stated in the earnest money receipt is "all land west of road running south to the Rehn farm......
-
Russell v. Russell
...or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.1 The dissent's statement I presume is made in reliance on Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 (1975), Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974), and Suchan v. Rutherford, 90 Idaho 288, 410 P.2d 434 (1966).1 I.C. § 9-......
-
Wolcott v. Booth
...motion, the district court dismissed the Wolcotts' action because their complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 (1975); Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not er......
-
Peterson v. Conida Warehouses, Inc., 12128
...and devoid of necessary terms and conditions as to be unenforceable and it conferred no rights on the Grimms. See Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 (1975); Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974); C. H. Leavell & Co. v. Grafe & Assocs., Inc., 90 Idaho 502, 414 P.2d 87......