When I was a child, the Quaker Oats Company promoted the sale of its Puffed Wheat breakfast cereal by including a Deed for a square inch of land in the Klondike in each box. As a proud land owner at the age of 6, I thought about building a house on the top of a pole firmly planted in my inch of land in the Yukon Territory. However, I recently learned that all of us kids lost their land in the Klondike in 1965 for the non-payment of $37.20 in property taxes by Quaker Oats.
As the California Court of Appeal has just reminded us, sometimes a real estate contract is not worth the paper that it is written on. In Patel v. Liebermensch, the Court of Appeal held that an option contract to purchase real estate is unenforceable unless it contains all of the essential terms of a contract to purchase real property. In Patel, the buyer was not entitled to specific performance of the option contract because the parties had not agreed to the length of the escrow. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court had no basis for supplying additional terms that the parties had not agreed to. [Note, the Court of Appeal was reversed by the CA Supreme Court on 12/22/2008; see, January 2, 2009 post.]
The Patel case is a reminder that an option contract must be drafted with the same level of specificity as a purchase contract itself, and all of the essential terms must be included. If you are interested in finding a Los Angeles area real estate lawyer to help you with an option contract or another type of real estate contract, feel free to contact the author of this Blog. If you are interested in buying land in the Klondike, I suggest you consult with a real estate broker in Dawson City or Whitehorse.
As the California Court of Appeal has just reminded us, sometimes a real estate contract is not worth the paper that it is written on. In Patel v. Liebermensch, the Court of Appeal held that an option contract to purchase real estate is unenforceable unless it contains all of the essential terms of a contract to purchase real property. In Patel, the buyer was not entitled to specific performance of the option contract because the parties had not agreed to the length of the escrow. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court had no basis for supplying additional terms that the parties had not agreed to. [Note, the Court of Appeal was reversed by the CA Supreme Court on 12/22/2008; see, January 2, 2009 post.]
The Patel case is a reminder that an option contract must be drafted with the same level of specificity as a purchase contract itself, and all of the essential terms must be included. If you are interested in finding a Los Angeles area real estate lawyer to help you with an option contract or another type of real estate contract, feel free to contact the author of this Blog. If you are interested in buying land in the Klondike, I suggest you consult with a real estate broker in Dawson City or Whitehorse.
