Roth v. Malson
Court of Appeal of California
79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 226 (1998)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
George Malson (defendant) placed a parcel of real estate consisting of 23.8 acres on the market for $47,600. John Roth (plaintiff) submitted an offer on the property using a standard real-estate form titled Sales Agreement and Deposit Receipt. The offer was for $41,650, with closing to be 30 days from the acceptance of the offer. On November 2, 1995, Malson sent a counteroffer back to Roth on another standard real-estate form, with the purchase price changed to $44,000 and all other terms of the offer to be retained. The counteroffer contained an expiration date of November 8, 1995. The document contained blanks for Roth to either accept the counteroffer or make another counteroffer. Roth filled out the Counter to Counter Offer blank and handwrote on the Changes/Amendments line on the form, “Price to be 44,000.00 as above. Escrow to close on or before Dec. 6, 1995. All cash.” Roth sent this form back to Malson before the deadline on November 8, 1995. Roth did not place a deadline on accepting the counter-counteroffer. Malson rejected the Counter to Counter Offer, and Roth sued Malson for specific performance. Malson moved for summary judgment on the ground that no contract existed to be enforced. The trial court granted summary judgment to Malson, and Roth appealed to the Court of Appeal of California.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sims, J.)
Dissent (Raye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
