In Wright v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1969) 274 Cal. App. 2d 252, equal co-owners of an incorporated car dealership entered into a written agreement under which accorded each owner an option to purchase full ownership upon the death of the other owner, and an oral agreement by which each agreed to buy a life insurance policy worth $ 40,000, and to name the other as beneficiary. ( Id. at pp. 254-255.) Only one of the owners bought the requisite policy. ( Id. at p. 255.) When the other owner died, the owner who had purchased the policy sued the decedent's estate, seeking damages arising from the loss of insurance proceeds and the inability to obtain full ownership of the dealership. (Ibid.) After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the owner's claim for the policy proceeds, the estate appealed, contending, inter alia, that the owner did not perform his obligation under the agreements to arrange to furnish the decedent with $ 40,000. ( Wright v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 274 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 257-258.) The estate argued that had the owner died instead of the decedent, the owner's wife would have been entitled to one-half of the $ 40,000 as her community property interest in the proceeds, thereby eliminating one-half of the sum promised to the decedent. (Ibid.) The court in Wright rejected this argument, reasoning that the rule that a wife may set aside 50 percent of a gift of community property did not dictate the result urged by the estate. The Wright court explained: "This rule does not apply to a business deal such as here in which consideration is given for the agreement. If the designation of a third party as beneficiary is made by the insured for a valuable consideration, the wife is not entitled to claim one-half of the proceeds of the policy. " ( Wright v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 274 Cal. App. 2d at p. 258.)