Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Knight
70 Cal. 2d 327 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party may be relieved from a forfeiture resulting from a non-willful, non-grossly negligent late payment for an option contract, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3275, when the other party can be fully compensated.
Facts:
- On September 30, 1963, plaintiffs' predecessors in interest entered into a written agreement with D. Manley Knight and his mother for a five-year option to purchase a parcel of real property.
- The contract required an initial payment of $10,000 and four subsequent annual payments of $10,000 on or before July 1 of each year to keep the option in force; these payments did not apply to the purchase price.
- A clause in the contract stated that "failure to make payment on or before the prescribed date will automatically cancel this option without further notice."
- Plaintiffs made the initial $10,000 payment and the annual payments for 1964 and 1965, totaling $30,000.
- Following the execution of the contract, plaintiffs invested significant funds in developing adjacent land, which caused the value of the option property to increase substantially.
- For the 1966 payment, plaintiffs mailed a check dated June 30, but defendant Knight received it on July 2, one day after the contractual due date.
- On July 8, Knight returned the check, stating that the option was cancelled due to the late payment. Plaintiffs immediately tendered another check, which Knight also refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued defendants in a state trial court, seeking a declaration that their option contract was still valid.
- Plaintiffs' motion for a summary judgment was denied by the trial court.
- Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendants.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the California Supreme Court.
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 a party's minor, non-willful delay in making an annual installment payment for a multi-year option contract, which the contract states will result in automatic cancellation, constitute a forfeiture from which a court may grant equitable relief under California Civil Code § 3275?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, C. J.
Yes, a party's minor, non-willful delay in making an annual payment for an option contract constitutes a forfeiture from which a court may grant relief. The court distinguished between the time to exercise an option, which is strictly construed, and the time for making installment payments to keep the option alive. The court rejected the view that this was a series of one-year contracts, finding instead that the economic reality was a single five-year option paid for in installments. As such, plaintiffs had paid a substantial amount ($30,000) not just for the past years but also for the right to exercise the option in the future. Terminating the contract for a one-day delay would cause plaintiffs to forfeit the value of the right to exercise the option in the final two years, a right for which they had already partially paid. Applying California Civil Code § 3275, the court found that since the breach was not grossly negligent, willful, or fraudulent, and defendant could be made whole by accepting the late payment, plaintiffs were entitled to relief from forfeiture.
Analysis:
This case significantly extends the equitable principle of relief from forfeiture, traditionally applied to land sale contracts, to option contracts. It demonstrates a judicial willingness to look beyond the strict form of an agreement to its economic substance to prevent a harsh and inequitable result. The decision tempers the power of 'time is of the essence' clauses, establishing that even in option contracts, a minor and non-willful default may be excused if the defaulting party would suffer a substantial loss and the other party can be fully compensated. This precedent influences how courts analyze defaults in installment-based option agreements, prioritizing fairness over rigid contractual enforcement.
