Widett v. Bond Estate, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 4514,4514 |
| Citation | 79 Nev. 284,382 P.2d 212 |
| Parties | Myron WIDETT, Appellant, v. BOND ESTATE, INC., a Corporation, aka Bond Estates, Inc., and Benjamin Jaffe, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Gregory & Gregory, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Jones, Wiener & Jones, Las Vegas, for respondents.
Widett commenced suit against Bond Estate, Inc., a corporation, and Jaffe, its sole stockholder, to recover a commission claimed to be due for services in procuring financing for purchases of equipment for the Tropicana Hotel at Las Vegas. He claims to have secured commitments totaling $1,800,000 ($1,200,000 from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, and $600,000 from the Bank of Las Vegas) as required by a written agreement with Jaffe dated February 19, 1955. The trial court found that the commitments procured did not meet the terms of the written agreement, and entered judgment for the defendants. Widett appeals.
(1) The St. Paul commitment. Through Widett's efforts a commitment was obtained from St. Paul to advance Bond Estate, Inc. and Jaffe $1,200,000. Bonds were to be issued by Bond Estate, Inc., and Jaffe, as principals, and St. Paul as surety, in favor of the equipment sellers as obligees. The obligation of St. Paul, as surety, was to indemnify the obligees, should Bond Estate Inc. and Jaffe, or either of them, fail to make the payments due upon the equipment purchase contracts. In addition, however, the terms of the commitment required that Guaranty Reserve Life Insurance Company of Hammond, Indiana, guarantee the performance of Bond Estate, Inc. and Jaffe, as principals upon the mentioned bonds. This additional requirement caused the trial court to conclude that the St. Paul commitment did not meet the terms of the written agreement of February 19, 1955. Its conclusion in this regard is the basis for Widett's claim of error.
We believe the trial court's conclusion was justified. The final written agreement of February 19, 1955 did not provide that Guaranty Reserve Life Insurance Company was to guarantee the performance of Jaffe and Bond Estate, Inc., as a condition of St. Paul's participation in the financing program. Yet the commitment for participation up to $1,200,000, subsequently given by St. Paul, specifically required such guaranty. Because of such requirement, Jaffe and Bond Estate Inc. refused to consummate the proposed arrangement. 1 Though previous conduct of Jaffe in dealing with Widett may have caused the latter to conclude that Guaranty Reserve Life Insurance Company would be willing to guarantee Jaffe's performance, such a guaranty was not provided for in the final written agreement. As the evidence may reasonably be viewed to disclose the parties' intention that there would be no enforcible contract until a written agreement was finally signed (Dolge v. Masek, 70 Nev. 314, 268 P.2d 919), their rights and duties are fixed by the final written agreement. Their preceding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Siqueiros
...Pictures Corp. v. De Toth, 26 Cal.2d 753, 161 P.2d 217 (1945); King v. Wenger, 219 Kan. 668, 549 P.2d 986 (1976); Widett v. Bond Estate, Inc., 79 Nev. 284, 382 P.2d 212 (1963); Dolge v. Masek, 70 Nev. 314, 268 P.2d 919 (1954); KVI, Inc. v. Doernbecher, 24 Wash.2d 943, 167 P.2d 1002 (1946). ......
-
Short v. Sunflower Plastic Pipe, Inc.
...Company v. Consolidated Uranium Mines, 247 F.2d 685 (10th Cir. 1957); West v. Carbone, 150 So.2d 37 (La.App.1963); Widett v. Bond Estate, Inc., 79 Nev. 284, 382 P.2d 212; Southwestern States Oil & Gas Co. v. Sovereign Resources, Inc., 365 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Civ.App.1963); Eastover Stores, Inc.......
-
Steven Cohen Prods., Ltd. v. Lucky Star, Inc.
...a binding contract is not formed in the absence of compliance with the contemplated procedure." Id. (citing Widett v. Bond Estate, Inc., 382 P.2d 212 (Nev. 1963)). Numerous courts have held that if a written agreement indicates that a signature is required for acceptance, its terms are not ......
-
Steven Cohen Prods., Ltd. v. Lucky Star, Inc.
...parties, a binding contract is not formed in the absence of compliance with the contemplated procedure." Id. (citing Widett v. Bond Estate, Inc., 382 P.2d 212 (Nev. 1963)). Numerous courts have held that if a written agreement indicates that a signature is required for acceptance, its terms......