Universal Development Corp. v. Shader
| Decision Date | 02 May 1980 |
| Parties | UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Stephen J. SHADER. 78-708. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Harry Asman, Birmingham, for appellant.
William W. Conwell and Terry W. Gloor, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff, Universal Development Corporation, specific performance, damages and other relief sought against the defendant, Stephen J. Shader. The facts which gave rise to this cause of action, as found in the final judgment of the Jefferson County Circuit Court, are as follows: On December 31, 1977, Universal Development Corporation, as purchaser, and Stephen J. Shader, as seller, contracted to buy and sell a parcel of land in the Red Mountain Park area. The contract provided that the sale would be closed on or before December 31, 1978. Pending the closing, Universal Development Corporation was to pay monthly interest payments of $667. These payments were to be forfeited as liquidated damages in the event the purchaser failed to carry out the terms of the agreement. The contract further provided that "The seller warrants that sewer facilities are available to this site." This contract was written by the president of the plaintiff, Universal Development Corporation. The trial court specifically found as a fact that on December 31, 1977, there existed an operable sewer line along the middle of Vulcan Road which abutted and adjoined the lot in question. The evidence at trial showed that the lot in question was in the sewer drainage area which was subject to a moratorium by the Alabama Water Improvement Commission but that the lot in question, along with other lots in a specific subdivision, had been exempted from the moratorium. Because of such exemption the lot in question was eligible for a sewer connection permit on December 31, 1977.
On November 14, 1978, the Alabama Water Improvement Commission lifted its sewer moratorium but Jefferson County simultaneously imposed its own moratorium on sewer connections within the same geographical area. This prevented the lot in question from being eligible for a sewer connection on the date set for closing, to-wit, December 31, 1978.
By agreement the parties changed the closing date to January 2, 1979, on which date the president of Universal Development Corporation called Mr. Shader's attorney and asked for a letter confirming that sewer facilities were available. The attorney responded verbally and in writing that he could not make such a warranty. Thereafter the plaintiff Universal Development Corporation failed to appear and close on the date set for closing. On January 12, 1979, the plaintiff brought this action, seeking to delay the closing date of the sales contract to such time as the defendant was able to warrant the availability of sewer connections to the site. The trial court denied all the relief sought by the plaintiff, reasoning:
The evidence shows that at the time of the contract, sewer facilities were available to Lot 12 and that the seller made a warranty of such existing fact. However, at the time for closing the sale, such condition no longer existed due to governmental action outside of the control of either party, but that the purchaser would not fulfill its part of the purchase without a further warranty that sewer facilities were then available for use. The seller could not make such a warranty due to the prior events of the moratorium and the contract expired by its written provisions.
Based upon these matters, the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wigington v. Hill-Soberg Co., Inc.
...effect of the terms of the contract as a matter of law. Miles College, Inc. v. Oliver, 382 So.2d 510 (Ala.1980); Universal Development Corp. v. Shader, 382 So.2d 1115 (Ala.1980); C. F. Halstead Contractor, Inc. v. Dirt, Inc., 294 Ala. 644, 320 So.2d 657 (1975). Extrinsic evidence may be adm......
-
Medical Clinic Bd. of City of Birmingham-Crestwood v. Smelley, BIRMINGHAM-CRESTWOOD
...to clarify the terms of the agreement; whether the writing is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. Universal Development Corp. v. Shader, 382 So.2d 1115 (Ala.1980); C. F. Halstead Contractor, Inc. v. Dirt, Inc., 294 Ala. 644, 320 So.2d 657 (1975). The ambiguity may be latent if the......
-
Smiths Water Authority v. City of Phenix City
...of the contract. Whether a written contract is unclear and ambiguous is a question of law for the court. E.g., Universal Development Corp. v. Shader, 382 So.2d 1115 (Ala.1980). While the court cannot make contracts for the parties, it must give their agreements a reasonable construction. Ch......
-
Edwards v. Strong
...produced ore tenus are afforded the same weight as a jury verdict. Cauley v. Sanders, 388 So.2d 891 (Ala.1980); Universal Development Corp. v. Shader, 382 So.2d 1115 (Ala.1980). The trial court's findings will not be disturbed if they are fairly supported by credible evidence. Lavett v. Lav......