The appellant argues that the parties' agreement, entitled "Agreement for Purchase of Mining Claim," was "in fact an installment sale or land sale contract." Hence, it contends, ".
#OLDS CORNET IN BROWN CASE TRIAL#
That section, entitled "Default", reads as follows: "Time is of the essence to this agreement, and if Buyer (defendant) should fail, neglect or refuse to abide by any of the terms or conditions hereof for a period of sixty (60) days after notice of default, this agreement will be considered null and void." Thus the contract became a nullity by its own provisions when the defendant failed to cure the defects in his performance within the allowed time after notification by the plaintiff.Īs the trial court also correctly noted, no other "pertinent sections of the agreement can be read to require a writing."Ģ.
In this case the contract becomes null and void by its own terms as set forth in Section XVIII of the agreement. He notice of default did not terminate the contract. The trial court found on this point, however that, that a notice of default is a termination of the agreement and could not be accomplished orally." Brown's attorney on or about 3/15/76 was inadequate. The appellant contended at trial that §§ XI and XVI of the agreement required that written notice of default be given, and that the oral notice of default given by Ms. In all respects we affirm the district court.ġ. Chapters 40 and 107, and, 3) by failing either to rule at all on Old Aztec's counterclaim or, if it can be deemed to have rendered a judgment on the counterclaim, by failing to rule in favor of Old Aztec. Brown to Old Aztec *983 constituted an adequate notice of default under the parties' agreement, 2) by failing to hold that the land sales contract, executed by the parties herein, was actually a mortgage subject to the provisions of N.R.S. The district court rendered no explicit decision on the defendant's counterclaim nor did it set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law concerning the counterclaim.Īppellant contends that the trial court erred, 1) by ruling that an oral notice of default given by Ms. The court also concluded that no additional monies were owed to Ms.
Therefore, the title to the property rests with the plaintiff as well as all monies paid to her as set forth in the contract, and Defendant Old Aztec Mine, Inc., no longer has any right, title or interest in the subject properties. that adequate notice of default was given, the defendant was in default, and default was not cured and as a result the contract became null and void by its own terms. Old Aztec counterclaimed alleging interference by the plaintiff with its contractual relationships and with its prospective economic advantage and perhaps hinting that the plaintiff had committed a forcible detainer of the subject property.Īt the close of a non-jury trial the district court found, Brown brought the action on Jseeking 1) a declaration that Old Aztec was in default of the terms of an agreement designed to convey certain patented and unpatented mining claims in Clark County, 2) to quiet title on the mining claims involved in the agreement and to restore possession of said properties to her, and, 3) to obtain money allegedly owed to her under the terms of the agreement. (hereafter "Old Aztec") was the defendant below. This is an appeal from a judgment in an action brought for a declaratory judgment, to quiet title on some mining claims, and to obtain damages for an alleged breach of contract. *982 Embry & Shaner, Las Vegas, for appellant.
0 kommentar(er)
