Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 4th 15·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1662·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12109·5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 879·2003 WL 22504469
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2003No. A099429California3,626 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Stevens, J.

Appellant the City of Alameda contends the trial court improperly held on summary judgment that a repurchase option in a written contract was not sufficiently definite to be enforceable under the statute of frauds. This appeal raises an issue as to whether extrinsic or parol evidence coming into existence after the execution of a written agreement may be considered in order to satisfy the statute of frauds, and render the agreement sufficiently certain to be enforceable. We conclude such evidence may be considered, and we therefore vacate the trial court’s orders, and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1918, the City of Alameda (City) constructed a municipal belt line railroad along Clement Avenue, between Pearl and Grand Street, to serve the newly developing northern industrial area of the City. Six years later, the City council formed a committee to investigate and make recommendations for extending the belt line to serve a large scale project involving California Packing Corporation and Alaska Packers Association, as well as other future industrial development. The committee recommended a separate belt line company be formed to take…

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.