Andrew E. Blanche, Jr., and Cynthia D. Blanche - Page 17

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011