Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

LAMB v. MORDEROSIAN, 36 Or. App. 505 (1978)

LAMB et ux, Respondents, v. MORDEROSIAN et ux, Appellants., 584 P.2d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 1978)

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1978-10-02
Topic
general

LAMB v. MORDEROSIAN, 36 Or. App. 505 (1978) 584 P.2d 796 LAMB et ux, Respondents, v. MORDEROSIAN et ux, Appellants. No. 38-069, CA 10540Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued July 19, 1978.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed LAMB v. MORDEROSIAN, 36 Or. App. 505 (1978). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

LAMB v. MORDEROSIAN,36 Or. App. 505(1978)
584 P.2d 796
LAMB et ux,Respondents,v. MORDEROSIAN et ux,Appellants.
No. 38-069, CA 10540
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued July 19, 1978.
Affirmed October 2, 1978.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Washington County, Donald Ashmanskas, Judge.
Gerald R. Pullen, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Ralph Bolliger, Beaverton, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Bolliger, Hampton Tarlow, Beaverton.
Before Johnson, Presiding Judge, and Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.Page 506

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]Page 507
PER CURIAM.
1, 2. Defendants appeal from a summary judgment directing specific performance of an earnest money agreement for sale of a residence. There is no dispute as to any material facts. We decide this case on two elementary principles of law: 1) where an offeree mails to his agent both an acceptance and a counteroffer and the agent submits only the acceptance to the offeror, the offeree is bound by his agent's actions; and 2) the acceptance was not valid until the agent communicated it to the offeror — Restatement of Contracts § 64, Illustration 2 (1932).

Affirmed.Page 508

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]Page 509