Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)

Citation
Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)
Parent Document
Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1953-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text

594 chars
Then follows correspondence between May 2, 1939, and July 12, 1939, participated in by plaintiff, Boekel, Richardson and Crummey, upon which plaintiff bases his contention that the written option agreement for the purchase of the stock was modified by reducing the purchase price from $25,000 to $12,000. However, it is clear from a reading of said correspondence that it was part of a series of negotiations and that no conclusion was reached, and the finding of the trial court that no agreement to modify the terms of the option agreement was ever made is fully supported by the record. *109