Matheson v. Harris

Idaho Supreme Court

Matheson v. Harris

536 P.2d 754, 96 Idaho 759, 1975 Ida. LEXIS 487

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJune 13, 1975

Docket11728

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 536 P.2d 754 (Matheson v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matheson v. Harris, 536 P.2d 754, 96 Idaho 759, 1975 Ida. LEXIS 487 (Idaho 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the summary judgment granted respondents Matheson pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56. The primary issue before the district court was whether an earnest money agreement for the sale of land would support the alleged buyers’ demand for either specific performance or damages upon sellers’ refusal to convey. The lower court held that the agreement in question was too ambiguous to support any remedy sought by the counterclaim of appellants Harris and Maughan.

The agreement in question is ambiguous as to the description of the land in question, the assumption of a non-existent outstanding mortgage, and the method of acceptance. This Court held in Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974) that ambiguous earnest money agreements will not support an award of specific per *760 formance or damages. A contract does not exist if any portion of the proposed terms is unsettled. C. H. Leavell and Co. v. Grafe and Associates, Inc., 90 Idaho 502, 414 P.2d 873 (1966). Since several terms of the document are clearly ambiguous, the agreement confers no rights in appellants.

We affirm the judgment of the district court that appellants take nothing by their action.

Costs to respondents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the summary judgment granted respondents Matheson pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56. The primary issue before the district court was whether an earnest money agreement for the sale of land would support the alleged buyers’ demand for either specific performance or damages upon sellers’ refusal to convey. The lower court held that the agreement in question was too ambiguous to support any remedy sought by the counterclaim of appellants Harris and Maughan.

The agreement in question is ambiguous as to the description of the land in question, the assumption of a non-existent outstanding mortgage, and the method of acceptance. This Court held in Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974) that ambiguous earnest money agreements will not support an award of specific per *760 formance or damages. A contract does not exist if any portion of the proposed terms is unsettled. C. H. Leavell and Co. v. Grafe and Associates, Inc., 90 Idaho 502, 414 P.2d 873 (1966). Since several terms of the document are clearly ambiguous, the agreement confers no rights in appellants.

We affirm the judgment of the district court that appellants take nothing by their action.

Costs to respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 P.2d 754, 96 Idaho 759, 1975 Ida. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matheson-v-harris-idaho-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack