For Your Data Humble Crude & Refining Co. V. Westside Investment Corp. Illustration Brief
October 30, 2020
Edit
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Westside Investment Corp. case brief summary
428 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 1968)
SYNOPSIS:
Petitioner appealed the judgment of the Bexar County Civil Court, Fourth District (Texas), which dismissed his claim for specific functioning of an selection contract for the buy of existent estate.
OVERVIEW: Petitioner entered into an understanding amongst respondent to buy existent estate through an selection contract. H5N1 written selection contract was executed betwixt the parties in addition to earnest coin exchanged. Subsequently, a missive of the alphabet of amendment to the contract of sale, dependent area to the selection contract, was sent to petitioner requesting his signature; petitioner did non respond precisely deposited the balance of the earnest coin into escrow pursuant to the price of the selection contract. Respondent contended that petitioner rejected the selection contract yesteryear respondent's subsequent missive of the alphabet of amendment.
HOLDING:
-The Petitioner successfully argued that the selection contract was an independent understanding that required him to create no to a greater extent than than he did.
ANALYSIS:
-Additionally, he was non foreclosed from negotiations relative to the contract of sale, equally distinguished from the option.
-As such, petitioner did non give upwards or spend upwards the selection in addition to it was a binding obligation betwixt the parties.
RULES:
-Where an master offering is an irrevocable offer, creating inwards the offeree a binding option, the dominion that a counter offering terminates the ability of credence does non apply.
-Even if it is reasonable to grip that it terminates a revocable power, it should non hold upwards held to terminate rights in addition to powers created yesteryear a contract.
-A binding selection is such a contract in addition to an offering inwards writing, that allows a fourth dimension for credence either definite or reasonable in addition to that is irrevocable yesteryear virtue of a statute, is itself a unilateral contract.
-A counter offering yesteryear such an offeree, or other negotiation non resulting inwards a contract, does non terminate the ability of acceptance
OUTCOME: The courtroom reversed the judgment of the trial courtroom in addition to held that petitioner was entitled to specific functioning of the selection contract, because the selection contract was an independent understanding betwixt the parties in addition to did non terminate negotiations regarding the contract of sale.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the meridian grades inwards your police describe schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
428 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 1968)
SYNOPSIS:
Petitioner appealed the judgment of the Bexar County Civil Court, Fourth District (Texas), which dismissed his claim for specific functioning of an selection contract for the buy of existent estate.
OVERVIEW: Petitioner entered into an understanding amongst respondent to buy existent estate through an selection contract. H5N1 written selection contract was executed betwixt the parties in addition to earnest coin exchanged. Subsequently, a missive of the alphabet of amendment to the contract of sale, dependent area to the selection contract, was sent to petitioner requesting his signature; petitioner did non respond precisely deposited the balance of the earnest coin into escrow pursuant to the price of the selection contract. Respondent contended that petitioner rejected the selection contract yesteryear respondent's subsequent missive of the alphabet of amendment.
HOLDING:
-The Petitioner successfully argued that the selection contract was an independent understanding that required him to create no to a greater extent than than he did.
ANALYSIS:
-Additionally, he was non foreclosed from negotiations relative to the contract of sale, equally distinguished from the option.
-As such, petitioner did non give upwards or spend upwards the selection in addition to it was a binding obligation betwixt the parties.
RULES:
-Where an master offering is an irrevocable offer, creating inwards the offeree a binding option, the dominion that a counter offering terminates the ability of credence does non apply.
-Even if it is reasonable to grip that it terminates a revocable power, it should non hold upwards held to terminate rights in addition to powers created yesteryear a contract.
-A binding selection is such a contract in addition to an offering inwards writing, that allows a fourth dimension for credence either definite or reasonable in addition to that is irrevocable yesteryear virtue of a statute, is itself a unilateral contract.
-A counter offering yesteryear such an offeree, or other negotiation non resulting inwards a contract, does non terminate the ability of acceptance
OUTCOME: The courtroom reversed the judgment of the trial courtroom in addition to held that petitioner was entitled to specific functioning of the selection contract, because the selection contract was an independent understanding betwixt the parties in addition to did non terminate negotiations regarding the contract of sale.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the meridian grades inwards your police describe schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
-->