Amacker

Amacker v. Pankost

Good Law
187 Cal. App. 2d 744·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1452·9 Cal. Rptr. 924
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 27, 1960Civ. No. 9903California1,411 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dyke, J.

This is an appeal from a money judgment rendered by the court sitting without a jury in an action for breach of contract.

Appellants, sellers, and respondents, buyers, entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of approximately 40 acres of unimproved land in the Lake Tahoe region of Nevada. The purchase price was $12,000 and the whole price has been paid and the property conveyed. The contract contained the following provisions: 111 The parties of the first part [sellers] shall cause water to be supplied to the above described property in sufficient quantity to supply not more than one home per acre; the parties of the second part [buyers] *745 to supply pipe lines on property in accordance with Utilities Commission ruling.” The controversy herein revolves around the quoted provisions. The complaint, pleading the contract by exhibit, alleged that the sellers had failed and refused to perform the contract on their part, “in that they have failed to cause water to be supplied to the property described in said contract.” Damages for this breach were asked in the sum of $8,000. The answer denied generally that the breach had occurred. The pretrial order stated the ease…

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.