California Court of Appeal
56 Cal. Rptr. 435 (1967)
Spindler (defendant) agreed to sell shares of stock to Sackett (plaintiff). Sackett agreed to pay for the stock in installments on specific dates. Spindler agreed to deliver the stock in full to Sackett when the latter had paid the final installment under the contract, which was due on or before August 15. Sackett paid the first installment on time, but thereafter fell behind in his payments. Sackett’s check for his final payment, though technically delivered on time, was denied by the bank for insufficient funds. On September 12, Sackett sent a telegram to Spindler, assuring Spindler that he had the funds and would transfer them. Spindler provided Sackett with the name of his attorney. Sackett’s attorney contacted Spindler’s attorney and the two met on September 19 to discuss Sackett’s performance under the contract. At that meeting, Spindler’s attorney provided notice that unless Sackett paid the final installment, plus interest, by September 22, then Spindler would consider the contract breached and would refuse to complete his performance under the contract. Sackett failed to pay the balance. Spindler agreed to extend Sackett’s time for performance until September 29. Again Sackett failed to perform. On October 4, Sackett sent Spindler another telegram promising to perform under the contract. On October 5, Spindler's attorney informed Sackett by letter that, due to Sackett’s failure to perform, Spindler refused to sell the stock to Sackett. On October 6, Sackett offered to pay the balance for the stock in further installments. Spindler refused, but stated that he would continue to honor the sale if Sackett would pay the full amount in cash or the equivalent. Sackett did not offer or tender cash or its equivalent. Sackett filed suit for breach of contract, claiming that Spindler’s October 5 letter constituted unlawful repudiation of the contract. Spindler filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract. The trial court held that Sackett’s refusal to pay the specified amounts by the specified dates constituted an unjustified breach of the agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of Spindler. Sackett appeals to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Molinari, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.