# Carrigg v. Fackrell

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · February 11, 1980 · 44 Or. App. 413

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6927380

## Case

- **Full name:** CARRIGG, et ux v. FACKRELL, MURTY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** February 11, 1980
- **Citations:** 44 Or. App. 413; 606 P.2d 636; 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2227
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lee
- **Judges:** Lee, Richardson, Schwab
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6927380

## Opinion text

LEE, J.,
dissenting.
I would affirm the trial court. The pivotal issue is the language of the contract. As conceded by the majority:
"* * * Thg contract does not define 'qualified purchasers,’ and it establishes no mechanism for determining what a 'qualified purchaser’ is. * * *”
The majority then proceeds to provide such "mechanics.”
Had the plaintiffs alleged fraud or mistake, then we might properly consider interpretation of the words "qualified purchaser”. However, plaintiffs only sought strict foreclosure of the contract, so we should strictly construe its terms as did the trial court.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6927380. Public record. Not legal advice.