Dixon v. Salvation Army
142 Cal. App. 3d 463, 191 Cal. Rptr. 111, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1652 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act, when a material part of real property is destroyed without fault of either party before legal title or possession has been transferred, the purchaser is not entitled to specifically enforce the contract with an abatement of the purchase price; the contract is instead subject to rescission.
Facts:
- The Salvation Army entered into a contract to sell two parcels of commercial property to Albert D. Dixon.
- The initial sales price of $1.1 million was reduced to $900,000 after the parties discovered structural deficiencies in one of the buildings.
- Before the close of escrow and before Dixon took title or possession, one of the two buildings on one of the parcels was destroyed by fire.
- The Salvation Army received $240,000 in fire insurance proceeds, but the destroyed building was significantly underinsured.
- The contract required the property to be delivered in the same general condition as when the contract was made, minus normal wear and tear.
- Following the fire, the parties were unable to agree on a new purchase price for the property in its damaged condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert D. Dixon filed an action for declaratory relief against The Salvation Army in a state trial court.
- Dixon filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Dixon's motion, issuing a declaration that the purchase price should be abated to reflect the fire loss, thereby permitting Dixon to seek specific performance at a reduced price.
- The Salvation Army, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act permit a buyer to seek specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price when a material part of the real property is destroyed without fault of either party before title or possession has passed to the buyer?
Opinions:
Majority - Cologne, Acting P. J.
No. When a material part of the subject property is destroyed before the risk of loss has passed to the purchaser, the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (Civil Code § 1662) allows the purchaser to rescind the contract and recover any money paid, but it does not grant the purchaser the right to specific performance with an abatement of the price. The court reasoned that while the statute explicitly prevents the vendor from enforcing the contract, it is silent on the purchaser's right to enforce it. Adopting the historical California common law rule from Potts Drug Co. v. Benedict, the court held that the destruction of a material part of the subject matter excuses the vendor's performance. It would be inequitable to compel the vendor to accept a price substantially below what was bargained for, just as it is unfair to force the purchaser to accept materially damaged property. The court concluded the most equitable approach is to place the parties in their original position, free to negotiate a new bargain rather than having a court remake the contract for them.
Dissenting - Work, J.
Yes. A buyer should be permitted to specifically enforce the contract with an abatement of the purchase price. The dissent argues that the risk of loss was clearly on the seller, The Salvation Army, which retained both title and possession. The purpose of specific performance is to honor the unique nature of real property, and a buyer who still wants the land should not be deprived of their bargain simply because a structure was destroyed. The dissent contends the seller foresaw the risk of fire and insured against it; the inadequacy of that insurance is the seller's business risk and should not preclude the buyer's remedy. The dissent concludes that where the risk of loss remains with the seller, the buyer should have the option to purchase the remaining property at a judicially determined, abated price.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant ambiguity in California's Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (UV PRA) regarding the buyer's remedies. By denying the buyer the right to specific performance with abatement after a material loss, the court established rescission as the primary remedy. This holding distinguishes California's interpretation of the UVPRA from that of other states, like New York, which allow for abatement. The ruling prioritizes restoring the parties to their pre-contract positions over judicially reforming a contract's essential terms, thereby discouraging litigation over valuation and encouraging parties to renegotiate or walk away.
