How have the courts interpreted a contract requiring a party to sell their jointly owned land?

Morris v. Zuckerman, supra, 69 Cal.2d 686, 72 Cal.Rptr. 880, 446 P.2d 1000 illustrates this overlap between arbitrability and remedies. A contract required plaintiff and defendant to sell jointly owned land on demand of another party. When the demand was made, however, the plaintiff proposed selling to a company he controlled, and the defendant refused to comply. (Id. at pp. 687-689, 72 Cal.Rptr. 880, 446 P.2d 1000.) The arbitrators decided the plaintiff and defendant were fiduciaries, and the proposed sale to a company controlled only by the plaintiff was an inequitable attempt to " 'squeeze out' " the defendant. The arbitrators therefore declined to require the defendant to sign the new sale contract as written;

Page 588