Pittman

Pittman v. Canham

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 23·2 Cal. App. 4th 556·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 340·92 Daily Journal DAR 348·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 320
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 1992B055532California1,496 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

When is a contract no longer a contract? When it contains concurrent conditions and neither party tenders timely performance. Unlike love or taxes, concurrent conditions do not last forever.

We hold that where a contract creates concurrent conditions and neither party tenders timely performance, both parties are discharged. We affirm the judgment.

Facts

Jeffrey A. Pittman was a licensed real estate broker. In 1987 he contacted Lily V. Canham, then 85 years old, to purchase a parcel of property she owned in San Luis Obispo County. After many telephone calls to Canham between May and November 1987, she agreed to sell a 56-acre parcel to Pittman for $250,000.

Pittman drafted the contract dated November 24, 1987, and deposited $1,000 in escrow. The contract called for a further deposit of $24,000 in cash, with the balance of the purchase price to be paid by a note secured by a deed of trust on the property. Closing of escrow was to be within 30 days. The contract provided that “[t]ime is of the essence. All modification or extensions shall be in writing signed by the parties.”

The parties executed escrow instructions that provided: “lime is of the essence of these…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.