R.H. PIERCE MFG. CORP. v. CONTINENTAL MFG.

No. 13493.

679 P.2d 142 (1984)

106 Idaho 342

R.H. PIERCE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Bill W. Nichols and Ramona Nichols, husband and wife; Charles Park and Billie Park, husband and wife; and Elma Lott, a divorced woman, dba Lott Enterprises, Defendants-Respondents. CONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, v. R.H. PIERCE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Respondent. CONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Cross Claimant-Appellant, v. Bill W. NICHOLS and Ramona Nichols, husband and wife; Charles Park and Billie Park, husband and wife; and Elma Lott, a divorced woman, dba Lott Enterprises, Defendants-Cross Defendants-Respondents. Bill W. NICHOLS and Ramona Nichols, husband and wife; Charles Park and Billie Park, husband and wife; and Elma Lott, a divorced woman, dba Lott Enterprises, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Respondents, v. R.H. PIERCE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Respondent. Bill W. NICHOLS and Ramona Nichols, husband and wife; Charles Park and Billie Park, husband and wife; and Elma Lott, a divorced woman, dba Lott Enterprises, Defendants-Cross Defendants-Cross Claimants-Respondents, v. CONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Cross Complainant-Cross Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

March 28, 1984.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard Dale Greenwood, Twin Falls, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas H. Church, Church, Church, Snow & Tuft, Burley, Larson, McIntyre & Coleman, Twin Falls, for plaintiff-respondent.


HUNTLEY, Justice.

This appeal, while arising from a very complex series of transactions and events, presents a relatively simple question: Whether an optionor may properly refuse to tender its agreed performance under an option contract when:

(a) the optionees (or their successors) cannot agree and each seeks to exercise the option to the exclusion of the other; and (b) the successor in interest of one of the optionees has executed on part (but...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases