Klimek v. Perisich case brief

 Klimek v. Perisich (Sup. Ct. of OR, 1962); CB 643; Notes 31

Vague private construction agreement – is it a K?

• Facts: D said house could be remodeled for between $8k and $10k. No formal K, just an oral agreement and many details worked out in the course of the remodeling. P ran out of money in middle, sued D for damages.
• Issue: Is there an enforceable K with offer and acceptance?
• Holding: no K. P knew that amounts given by D were estimates; no formal offer and acceptance, so no K.
• Rule: Acceptance must conform precisely to offer, otherwise there is no agreement; the amount paid and services to be rendered must be reasonable certain. K must be specific enough to allow enforcement.
• Commentary: opinion based on indefiniteness of the subject matter of the offer. No agreement existed other than to perform labor at an hourly rate and there was no agreement as to the extent of remodeling or the materials to be used, and therefore no K existed between the parties. Indefiniteness of an offer makes an unenforceable K b/c the court is going to have to deal with the ambiguity.