(DOWNLOAD) "Lyle J. Robison and James Christiansen V." by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 11980 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Lyle J. Robison and James Christiansen V.
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 11980
- Release Date : January 26, 1976
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
On August 9, 1973, plaintiffs-appellants Lyle J. Robison and James Christiansen executed an Earnest Money Agreement and tendered it to defendants-respondents Dean and Carol Compton, seeking to purchase some 4,000 acres of farmland from the respondents. Respondents signed the Agreement on August 17, 1973. Subsequently, a preliminary title report revealed that Rita Compton Bateman, the mother of Dean Compton, owned part of the property to be conveyed. Mrs. Bateman, however, refused to join in a conveyance and respondents were unable to convey the land to appellants. Appellants filed this action seeking damages and specific performance of the Earnest Money Agreement.[Footnote 1] After answering the complaint, respondents filed a motion for summary judgment; oral arguments together with written affidavits were presented to the district court on this motion. The district court granted the motion, relying on this Court's decision in Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974). In Luke plaintiffs had sought to specifically enforce an Earnest Money Agreement after defendants refused to sign the revised draft of a land sales contract. Specific performance was denied on the ground that the Earnest Money Agreement was an incomplete statement of the terms of the sale. This Court in the Luke case held that the Ernest Money Agreement contemplated that a land sales contract would be entered into by the parties which would include further details of the financing and the conveyance. That holding was supported by the fact that such a land sales contract was prepared by the parties and an attempt was made by them to negotiate its terms. In addition, the following language from the agreement was quoted to support the Court's position: