Capo v. Bugdahl

Citations

• 117 La. 992
• 42 So. 478
• 1906 La. LEXIS 808

Syllabus

<p>1. Specific Performance — Conditions of Contract — Suit for Specific Performance.</p> <p>In a suit to compel defendant to specifically perform an agreement to sell, the terms and conditions control.</p> <p>2. Vendor and Purchaser — Contract—Construction — Not a Saxe.</p> <p>Tbe agreement was not a definite sale taking effect at its date.</p> <p>It states in part “balance when act of sale is passed.”</p> <p>Substantially similar agreements have been considered as promises of sale.</p> <p>“There was to be a sale, the title was to be transferred; that was to be done.” Bennett v. Puller, 29 La. Ann. 667; Knox v. Payne & Harrison, 13 La. Ann. 361; Peck v. Bemis, 10 La. Ann. .160; Collins v. Desmaret, 45 La. Ann. 108, 12 South. 121.</p> <p>3. Same — Option — Earnest Monet or Aerhes.</p> <p>There was a promise of sale. The cash deposited at the time the agreement to sell was signed by one of the parties was to be forfeited in case the vendee did not pay the price agreed upon and complete the sale.</p> <p>This was the stipulation. The right remained in the defendant to decline to complete the sale by paying twice the amount.</p> <p>One of the parties may recede from the promises, to wit, “he who has given the consent, by forfeiting it. And-he who has received it by returning the double.”</p> <p>This is precisely what has been done by the one who proposed to sell.</p> <p>(Syllabus, by the Court.)</p>