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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1171091/maxfield-v-burtt/ ↗

Full Text

1,214 chars

Appellant’s contention that punctual payments under the option agreement were waived by defendants is without merit. The option agreement provided that the agreed price of $25,000 was to be paid as follows: $500 on the execution of the option, the balance payable: seven monthly installments of $100 each, on or before the first day of December, 1936, January, February, March, April, May and June, 1937; monthly installments of $150 each for the second six months of 1937; of $200 each for the first six months of 1938; and $250 each for the second six months of 1938; of $300 each for the first six months of 1939; and $350 each for the second six months of 1939; $400 each for the first six months of 1940; and $450 each for the second six months of 1940; and the balance of $11,200 on or before July 1, 1941. As hereinbefore set forth, appellant made his installment payments pursuant to said terms through June, 1937. On July 7, 1937, he paid $100 instead of the $150 installment that was due, and requested that the monthly payments be kept at $100 for another six months’ period. Defendant Richardson agreed to this. Appellant paid $100 in August, 1937, but made no further payment except a $70 payment *112

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text