What is the effect of the rule that sales of similar properties are not receivable into evidence?

The concurring opinion in County of Los Angeles v. Faus, 304 P.2d 257, 268, puts the matter thus: 'All this difficulty grows out of the established rule that sales of similar properties are not receivable into evidence upon direct examination; which means not at all unless elicited upon cross-examination; and the fundamental trouble lies in the exclusion of evidence of other sales as proof of market value. The rule is designed to avoid collateral issues and resultant delays. It does not seem to be based on any concept of irrelevancy or immateriality, for it could not rest upon any such considerations.