Quan v. Kraseman

California Court of Appeal

Quan v. Kraseman

191 P.2d 16, 84 Cal. App. 2d 550, 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1235

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 25, 1948

DocketCiv. 13640

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 P.2d 16 (Quan v. Kraseman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quan v. Kraseman, 191 P.2d 16, 84 Cal. App. 2d 550, 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1235 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued for specific performance of a written contract to sell real property. Judgment went to defendants.

The defendants were an elderly couple who, without independent advice, were persuaded by plaintiff to sign an agreement to sell their home property for $16,000 on a down payment of $1,000, the balance covered by unsecured promissory notes providing.instalment payments over a period of eight years. The trial court found on substantial evidence that the contract price was not a fair price and that the contract as a whole was inequitable and unfair. The latter finding is supported by the evidence that the contract called for payment of $15,000 of the purchase price of $16,000 by delivery of promissory notes which were wholly unsecured. It is a matter of common knowledge that such a contract is rarely, if ever, entered into between parties who are aware of their mutual rights and obligations.

It is settled law that the decision whether a contract sought to be enforced is fair and equitable is left with the trial court in the first instance, and where, as here, there is evidence supporting the finding, the judgment will not be disturbed. This follows from the principle that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove that the contract is not inequitable or unconscionable. (23 Cal.Jur., pp. 490, 493-495.)

Judgment affirmed.

Goodell, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

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

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued for specific performance of a written contract to sell real property. Judgment went to defendants.

The defendants were an elderly couple who, without independent advice, were persuaded by plaintiff to sign an agreement to sell their home property for $16,000 on a down payment of $1,000, the balance covered by unsecured promissory notes providing.instalment payments over a period of eight years. The trial court found on substantial evidence that the contract price was not a fair price and that the contract as a whole was inequitable and unfair. The latter finding is supported by the evidence that the contract called for payment of $15,000 of the purchase price of $16,000 by delivery of promissory notes which were wholly unsecured. It is a matter of common knowledge that such a contract is rarely, if ever, entered into between parties who are aware of their mutual rights and obligations.

It is settled law that the decision whether a contract sought to be enforced is fair and equitable is left with the trial court in the first instance, and where, as here, there is evidence supporting the finding, the judgment will not be disturbed. This follows from the principle that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove that the contract is not inequitable or unconscionable. (23 Cal.Jur., pp. 490, 493-495.)

Judgment affirmed.

Goodell, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 P.2d 16, 84 Cal. App. 2d 550, 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quan-v-kraseman-calctapp-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack