Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Bbtc Company
113 Cal. Rptr. 705, 11 Cal. 3d 494, 521 P.2d 1097 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an option contract does not prescribe a specific manner for communicating its exercise, a written notice of acceptance by the optionee is effective upon its deposit in the mail, pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1582 and 1583.
Facts:
- On November 20, 1964, Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. (plaintiff) leased premises to BBTC Company (defendant) for a five-year term, starting January 1, 1965, and ending December 31, 1969, for the operation of a restaurant and bar.
- The lease granted BBTC Company two successive options to extend the term for five years each, requiring BBTC Company to give 'not less than six months prior notice in writing to the Lessor'.
- On June 5, 1969, more than six months before the lease term ended, BBTC Company prepared, signed, and deposited a letter in the mail, properly stamped and addressed to Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc., notifying it of the exercise of the first option to extend the lease.
- BBTC Company continued its business operations and made various improvements on the premises in anticipation of the extended lease term.
- On February 13, 1970, a month and a half after the initial lease term expired, Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. notified BBTC Company that the lease had expired due to lack of renewal and demanded surrender of the premises, claiming it had never received BBTC Company's letter.
- BBTC Company refused to vacate, asserting that it had properly exercised its option.
Procedural Posture:
- Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. (plaintiff) commenced an action for declaratory relief in the trial court, seeking a determination of its rights and duties under the lease and whether BBTC Company (defendant) properly exercised its option.
- BBTC Company filed an answer and a cross-complaint, alleging proper exercise of the option and seeking damages for plaintiff's alleged wrongful actions.
- The trial court found that BBTC Company properly prepared, signed, and mailed a letter unconditionally exercising its first renewal option on June 5, 1969, and that BBTC Company validly exercised the option and was rightfully in possession.
- Judgment was entered by the trial court in favor of BBTC Company.
- Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment.
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 written notice by an optionee to exercise an option become effective upon mailing or only upon actual receipt by the optionor, when the option contract does not specify the method of communication?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes, a written notice by an optionee to exercise an option is effective upon its deposit in the mail, provided the option contract does not specify a different manner of communication. The court first clarified that while option contract provisions prescribing the manner of exercise must be strictly followed, the lease in question only required notice 'in writing' but did not specify the communication method. The phrase 'giving notice' does not inherently mean 'receiving notice,' and paragraph 19 of the lease, although concerning notices to the lessee, suggested that ordinary mail was a permissible means of communication. Therefore, pursuant to Civil Code section 1582, which allows 'any reasonable and usual mode' for communication when no conditions are prescribed, ordinary mail was a reasonable method. The court then affirmed that the 'effective upon posting' rule, codified in Civil Code section 1583, applies to option contracts. Section 1583 states that 'Consent is deemed to be fully communicated... as soon as the party accepting a proposal has put his acceptance in the course of transmission to the proposer.' The court acknowledged the dual nature of an option (an irrevocable offer and a unilateral contract) but emphasized that from the optionee's perspective, exercising an option is an 'acceptance' of an 'irrevocable offer,' clearly falling within the scope of section 1583. Despite acknowledging a 'majority rule' in other jurisdictions that favors receipt, the court firmly upheld California's established statutory and decisional policy that acceptance is effective upon mailing.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the application of the 'mailbox rule' (or 'effective upon posting' rule) to irrevocable option contracts in California. It provides clarity for parties to option agreements by establishing a default rule that mailing constitutes effective notice unless the contract explicitly mandates actual receipt. The decision reinforces the importance of carefully drafting contract language if parties intend to deviate from the statutory presumption, and it highlights the California Supreme Court's commitment to its codified statutory policy over conflicting rules from other jurisdictions, particularly regarding contract formation and communication of acceptance.
