- 17 -
option for petitioners to lease the property prior to the closing
date, rather than an option to purchase. The language of the
earnest money contract bound petitioners to purchase and the
Hewitts to sell the Foxbriar property on or before the closing
date. This is evidenced by the terms of the contract requiring
that, in the event of default on the part of the purchaser, the
seller could either sue for specific performance or retain the
earnest money as liquidated damages. It is well settled under
Texas law that a contract for sale exists when the seller has
both of these remedies. See Gala Homes, Inc. v Fritz, 393 S.W.2d
409, 411 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)(citing Paramount Fire Ins. Co. v.
Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 353 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Tex. 1962) and Moss
v. Wren, 113 S.W. 739 (Tex. 1908)); Tabor v. Ragle, 526 S.W.2d
670, 675 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975); Broady v. Mitchell, 572 S.W.2d
36, 40 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978).
The holding in Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Allbritton, supra, with
respect to a purchase option in a lease contract is inapplicable
to the contract for sale in the instant case. Sinclair Ref. Co.
addresses the conditions under which a lease contract with an
option to purchase becomes a contract for sale. In the instant
case, the issue is not whether petitioners entered into a valid
contract for purchase of the Foxbriar property. Clearly, they
did so. Rather, the question is whether petitioners obtained
equitable title to the Foxbriar property. Sinclair Ref. Co. does
not address that question. Moreover, the holding in Sinclair
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011