Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet Inc.

622 S.W.2d 694 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)

 

RULE:

The court sustains the judgment of the trial court unless the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, unless it is against the weight of the evidence or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law. In conducting the court's review, the court does not judge the credibility of witnesses. That task quite properly rests with the trial court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.01(c) (2).

FACTS:

Plaintiffs sued defendant on a contract for the purchase of a car. The trial court ordered defendant to specifically perform on the contract. Defendant contended that (1) the existence of an oral contract was not supported by the credible evidence; (2) if an oral contract existed, it was unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds; and (3) specific performance was an improper remedy because plaintiffs did not show their legal remedies were inadequate. The court affirmed, holding that failure to specify the selling price did not render the contract void or voidable.

 

ISSUE:

Did the trial court have sufficient evidence to order specifice performance?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

As long as the parties agreed to a method by which the price was to be determined and as long as the price could be ascertained at the time of performance, the price requirement for a valid and enforceable contract was satisfied. The court held that because there was no dispute as to quantity, part payment for a single indivisible commercial unit removed the oral contract from the Statute of Frauds. The court held further that plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law and, thus, were entitled to specific performance.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.