Porter v. Meier Chevrolet-Buick, Inc.
| Citation | 89 Adv.Sh. 771,254 Or. 482,461 P.2d 527 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | CHEVROLET-BUIC,INC |
| Parties | Christopher J. PORTER, Respondent, v. MEIER, a corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert L. Burns, Gresham, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Roscoe C. Nelson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Marvin S. Nepom, Portland.
On May 16, 1967, the plaintiff and defendant executed a contract by which plaintiff agreed to buy the assets of defendant corporation. The assets consisted of the various properties of an automobile agency located in Reedsport. Plaintiff paid $5,000 to defendant on that date to bind the agreement. One paragraph of the contract provided:
'It is agreed between the parties that this agreement shall be binding upon Buyer only at such time as the Chevrolet Division of General Motors shall grant Buyer a selling agreement in Reedsport, Oregon.'
On the date the contract was signed plaintiff was confident that he had the financing to complete the transaction and obtain the consent of General Motors to a transfer of the Chevrolet franchise. Shortly thereafter the anticipated financing became unavailable to plaintiff. This made it impossible for him to obtain the Chevrolet franchise. He was obliged, after considerable effort to obtain substitute finances, to inform defendant that he could not obtain the required financing. He asked for the return of his $5,000. When that was refused he filed this action. The trial court, without a jury, found for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
The defendant contends that there should be implied in the quoted clause of the contract the provision that failure of General Motors to grant the agreement only frees the buyer if General Motors' failure was not caused by buyer's failure to satisfy General Motors.
The trial court interpreted the agreement to mean that buyer would be excused from performance even if he failed to satisfy General Motors if the buyer acted in good faith. We concur with the trial court's interpretation.
It is necessary to decide therefore, if there is evidence to support the trial court's finding that plaintiff had proceeded in good faith during the negotiation of the contract and in his subsequent effort to fully perform. There was ample evidence that plaintiff had no reason to doubt that his financing was secure when he signed the agreement and that when his anticipated financer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Kirkman Grp.
...agreement could be enforceable . . . only if, or when, the condition precedent to its formation occurred."); Porter v. Meier Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 254 Or. 482, 484 (1969) ("Until the condition was met the contract did not come into operative existence."); cf. Salem Res., Inc. v. U.S. Consu......
-
Twombley v. Wulf
...would have the obligation to assume and pay the balance on the installment sales contract, and relies upon Porter v. Meier Chevrolet-Buick, 254 Or. 482, 461 P.2d 527 (1969); and South Seattle Auto Auction, Inc. v. Ladd, 230 Or. 350, 370 P.2d 630 (1962). In Porter, Supra, plaintiff agreed to......
-
Meier v. Porter
...contract and that he was entitled to return of the down payment. On appeal to this court we affirmed. Porter v. Meier Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., Or., 89 Adv.Sh. 771, 461 P.2d 527 (1969). Dean Vincent, Inc., also filed an action on the listing agreement against Meier Chevrolet-Buick Inc., the pl......