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

621 chars
“. . . appellant argues that ‘the most fatal omission in giving the 30-day notice was the failure to tender the stock when the demand was made for the entire balance of the purchase price. ’ Since appellant did nothing after the receipt of the notice, it seems obvious that a tender of the stock would have been useless. There is nothing in paragraph 10 creating a reciprocal obligation; it merely provides that the optionors shall give appellant 30 days to cure ‘his’ default, and there is no provision calling upon optionors to tender the shares of stock as a condition precedent to payment. “In McClintick v. Leonards,