holding that evidence supported trial court's conclusion that defendant knew 34 exact amount of principal obligation to be assumed, and defendant could not complain that disagreement over the amount of interest outstanding rendered the contract to assume plaintiff's obligation fatally defective for lack of definite price; however, contested interest would not be included in amount of sale
How later courts described this case
- holding that evidence supported trial court's conclusion that defendant knew 34 exact amount of principal obligation to be assumed, and defendant could not complain that disagreement over the amount of interest outstanding rendered the contract to assume plaintiff's obligation fatally defective for lack of definite price; however, contested interest would not be included in amount of sale
- holding that evidence supported trial court’s conclusion that defendant knew exact amount of principal obligation to be assumed, and defendant could not complain that disagreement over the amount of interest outstanding rendered the contract to assume plaintiffs obligation fatally defective for lack of definite price; however, contested interest would not be included in amount of sale
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHOTT, Judge,
with whom RED-MANN, Judge, joins, dissenting:
As stated in the majority opinion, plaintiffs have consistently maintained that they agreed to sell the restaurant equipment to defendant for the total of principal ($17,-940.87) plus interest ($1,856.80). Defendant has maintained, with equal consistency, that the agreed price was $13,000.00.
We respectfully disagree with the statement by our colleagues that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that an agreement was confected for the purchase price of $17,940.87. On the contrary, there was no evidence to that effect.
Basic contract law requires a meeting of the minds of the purchaser and seller on the price of the thing for a sale to be confected. *809 Since neither party has ever taken the position that the agreed price was $17,940.87 the trial court could not properly conclude that was the price agreed upon.
The judgment should be reversed and the sale annulled.