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

871 chars
on July 1,1938. Nor did he pay the taxes as agreed. Demands for payment were made upon him after June 1, 1937. The record amply supports the finding of the trial court that there was no waiver of punctual payments under the option agreement. Certainly no waiver is shown by defendants’ demands for payment of delinquent installments, nor by failure to declare a forfeiture. Section 11 of the option agreement provides that no waiver by the stockholders of any breach of the agreement or cause of forfeiture shall be deemed to be waiver of breaches or causes for forfeiture subsequently arising. It was therefore not necessary for defendants to notify appellant after default that strict performance would be required in the future. (Fageol T. & C. Co. v. Pacific Indem. Co., 18 Cal.2d 748 [117 P.2d 669]; Deevy v. Lewis, 54 Cal.App.2d 24 [128 P.2d 577]; Grimes v. Steele,