Joseph Lonergan v. Albert Scolnick case brief summary
129 Cal.App.2d 179
SYNOPSIS:
laintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) in an action against defendant for specific performance or for damages.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for specific performance or damages. The parties corresponded about a plot of land defendant had advertised for sale. Plaintiff set up an escrow account in the event that he decided to purchase the land. Defendant sold the land to another party, resulting in this action. The trial court found that plaintiff and defendant did not enter into a contract as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, and that defendant was entitled to judgment against plaintiff. Defendant's advertisement in the paper was a mere request for an offer.
HOLDING:
The court here agreed with the trial court's finding that no contract had been entered into between the parties, and found that the trial court's construction of the letters exchanged between the parties as inquiries and answers, rather than acceptance, was reasonable.
ANALYSIS:
Further assent on the part of defendant was required to show acceptance.
RULES:
-There can be no contract unless the minds of the parties have met and mutually agreed upon some specific thing.
-This is usually evidenced by one party making an offer which is accepted by the other party.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment for defendant in plaintiff's action against defendant for specific performance or for damages.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
129 Cal.App.2d 179
SYNOPSIS:
laintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) in an action against defendant for specific performance or for damages.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for specific performance or damages. The parties corresponded about a plot of land defendant had advertised for sale. Plaintiff set up an escrow account in the event that he decided to purchase the land. Defendant sold the land to another party, resulting in this action. The trial court found that plaintiff and defendant did not enter into a contract as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, and that defendant was entitled to judgment against plaintiff. Defendant's advertisement in the paper was a mere request for an offer.
HOLDING:
The court here agreed with the trial court's finding that no contract had been entered into between the parties, and found that the trial court's construction of the letters exchanged between the parties as inquiries and answers, rather than acceptance, was reasonable.
ANALYSIS:
Further assent on the part of defendant was required to show acceptance.
RULES:
-There can be no contract unless the minds of the parties have met and mutually agreed upon some specific thing.
-This is usually evidenced by one party making an offer which is accepted by the other party.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment for defendant in plaintiff's action against defendant for specific performance or for damages.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment