Shimrak v. Goodsir

The Shimraks (plaintiffs) contracted to buy a house from Susan Goodsir (defendant) subject to a financing contingency giving the Shimraks the option to either request an extension or remove the contingency if they failed to obtain timely financing, with the contract voiding only if Goodsir refused an extension request; when the Shimraks' bank wouldn't finance until they sold their current home, they proposed amending the contract to make the sale contingent on that separate condition, which Goodsir rejected, leading the Shimraks to withdraw from the deal. Goodsir later resold the home at a lower price, the Shimraks sued for return of their earnest money, Goodsir counterclaimed for breach, and the trial court ruled for the Shimraks, finding the two contractual options discretionary and treating the amendment proposal as an extension request that Goodsir's rejection had voided; Goodsir appealed.

Whether, if a real estate contract is contingent upon two alternative options, the party to whom the contingency applies is obligated to choose one of those options.