3 - RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE

Home Browse Search

the terns of-the contract." Accordingly, California law is generally predisposed to uphold contracts as cnforceable.12 For instance, in Erscr Uiwe C'or7~. v. F7rror C e p_ ( 1991) 1 Cal.AppAth 613, 623, Division 1 of the Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) found the terms of large scale real estate development contract sufticicntly definite to cnlorce where the contract stated one party, Frsa Grae, agreed to provide funding within a defined period after the satisfaction ofcertain conditions; the other, Fluor, agreed to select and pay for the services of all third-parties needed to supervise and carry out the necessary construction work; and, upon completion, FIUOr agreed to transfer its interests in the completed project and nnderlyin" land lease to a consortium in cxchan-c for £1 million.; In rejectinp Flnor-s claim that the contract was unenforceable because it contemplated the parties' negotiation and execution Oh ILrture agreements necessary to carry out their intent the parties' required negotiation and execution of their contemplated future agreement to convey the fully developed property snhject to a long-term land lease), 14 L'r•.vcr Grcee explained: The tact that an aOrcelnent contemplates subsequent documentation does not invalidate the agreement if the parties have a5;reed to its existing terms. (See CIOrk v- 1~zecller (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 838, 847 ["'Any other rule would always permit a party who has entered a contract like this to violate it, whenever the understanding was that it should be rednceCI to another written torus- by simply suggesting other- and additional terms and conditions. ]('this were the rule the contract would never be completed in cases where, by chan-es in the market, or other events occurring- subsequent to the written nellotiations, it became the interest of-cither party to adopt that course in order to escape or evade Obligations incurred in the ordinary COL-Se of commercial business."' Sec also, .S;Mi.v.vcierl Y. C'17i1c10 ( 1958) 1 63 Cal.App.2d 827, 830.'5 The legally enforceable contract in Er.vcl C;rcre is very similar to the S.A. Venture Agreement. Here, the Former Agency agreed to pay certain Fees in connection with certain types o suture development performed by the Developer at the Site. EI-Ntl Cirue is just one of dozens of published cases holding contracts of this type fully enforceable. See, e.g., Bleeeher v- Crowe ( 198 1) 29 Cal.3d 345, 354-55 [the law does not bar specific performance Ufa land sales contract in which a city's future approval of-certain development plans is made a condition precedent to completion of the agreenicnt]; Liw-win- Scrrrthersa C'crlijbrniu. Inc. v_ .1(;B Inveslmenl Co- (1979) 10 1 Cal-App.3d 626, 638 1the mere Judicial Council of CaIiIO[-Ilia Advisory Committee Oil Civil Jury Instructions 302, Contract Formation - Essential Factual Elements. See, e.g., !'tier! v. Lieb","' nsrh (2008) 45 Cal -4th 344, 369-70 (quoting and citing A/c!!/moil v. brcnrlc•t AR>hu C•U. (1923) 190 ('al. 546). 39 (1991 ) t C'al.App.4th 613, 623. Er.tu C;,we Corp-, I Cal-App-4th at 623. i5 Id. at n. 3 (citations in original). I';mv 7 <,1 1) 3-31